Court rejects pre-arrest bail of two Delhi bases persons in ‘Kiru Hydroelectric Project’ scam

STATE TIMES NEWS

JAMMU: In a much publicized Kiru Hydroelectric Project case, Special Judge CBI Jammu Bala Joyti on Friday rejected the pre-arrest bail applications of two persons of Delhi namely Sumit and Arun Kumar.
During the course of hearing Public Prosecutor Manmohan Sharma for the CBI argued strenuously that the present application is not maintainable at all being devoid of any legal force, hence on merits is liable to be rejected, Infact the conspectus of the matter in hand is that vide Letter No.GAD VIGOMISC/2/2022-07-GAD dated March 23, 2022 has conveyed the decision of Govt of UT of J&K for investigation by CBl into allegations of malpractices in award of contract in respect of civil works of ‘Kiru Hydro electric Power’ Project and on the basis of reports of ‘Anti Corruption Bureau’, UT of J&K and Power Development Deptt. Govt of J&K and keen perusal of these reports reveals that in award of contract in respect of Civil Works of ‘Kiru Hydroelectric Project, guidelines regarding e-tendering were not followed and though a decision was taken in 47th Board Meeting of CVPPPL (‘Chenab Valley Power Projects (P) Ltd for re-tender through e-tendering with reverse auction, after cancellation of ongoing tendering process, same was not implemented (as per decision taken in the 48th Board meeting) and tender was finally awarded to M/s. ‘Patel Engineering Ltd. PP further apprised this Court that after receipt of the said complaint, regular case RC0042022A0005 was registered on April 20, 2022 again (Navin Kumar Choudhary, as the then Chairman, ‘Chenab Valley Power Projects’ Pvt. Ltd (CVPPPL) (ii) M.S Babu, the then Managing Director, CVPPPL (iii) Arun Kumar Mishra, the then Director, CVPPPL (iv) M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd atjd (vi) unknown others u/s. 5(l){d) r/w 5(2) of J & K PC Act vc vSamvat 2006 and Sec 120-B of J & K RPC on the basis of reference received from Govt of LLT of J&K for investigation by CBI into allegations of award of contracts.
Special Judge CBI Bala Joyti after hearing both the sides, observed that the nature of allegations and gravity of accusation/stage of investigation, this Court is of the firm opinion that investigating agency must be given sufficient time in conducting analyzed and effective investigation, in view of gravity of accusations and material available. Thus, in view of the above said the present application can not be allowed and interim ‘ protection cannot be granted as it may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused persons/applicant and in useful information and also the material which might to be concealed and moreover success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the Court. Thus to my mind, grant of anticipatory bail at tins stage would definitely hamper the effective investigation, having regard to the material said to have been collected by the respondent CBI and considering the stage of investigation, I am of the firm view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to applicant/accused as the matter being at infancy stage as such the present application being devoid of any legal force merits rejection and is accordingly dismissed.