news details |
|
|
| Court rejects bail in Rs 1.26 crore PWD fraud | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Nov 26: Principal Sessions Judge Udhampur Virinder Singh Bhou today rejected all regular and anticipatory bail applications filed in the alleged Rs 1.26 crore embezzlement racket in the PWD (R&B) Division Ramnagar, describing the case as a deep-rooted economic offence requiring custodial interrogation to trace the complete money trail.
The clubbed bail applications were moved on behalf of Nitin Abrol and Aryan Sharma (through Adv. Gulshan Singh Shan); Shreyas and Vikas Sharma (through Adv. Karun Raina); Akhil Singh (through Advocates Sandeep Bhat and Kirti); Rahul Sharma and Kushal Singh (through Advocates Abhimanyu Sharma and Chaitanya Mahajan); Parshotam Kumar Joshi and Sansar Singh (through Senior Adv. Amit Gupta with Adv. Sumit Moza); and Bishan Dass Malhotra (through Adv. Ajay Bandral). The Union Territory was represented by Ld. APP Hemanshu Parkash and APP Vinay Sharma.
The court recorded that accused Bishan Dass Malhotra is functioning as Assistant Accounts Officer (additional charge) in the division, while Akhil Singh, an MTS posted in the accounts section, is alleged to have acted as accounts clerk and is projected as the prime conspirator. A departmental committee had already been constituted to scrutinise the accounts, and the Chief Engineer has placed Akhil, Kushal and Rahul under suspension pending investigation.
As per the complaint of Executive Engineer Er. Neeraj Vaid, internal scrutiny revealed that around 70 forged invoices were generated over two years, transferring funds meant for contractors into private accounts linked to the accused, causing a loss of Rs 1,26,35,786, besides Rs 14.28 lakh released as security deposit in violation of codal procedures and defect-liability norms.
The court observed that the repeated diversion of government funds, routing of payments to private bank accounts, and layering of transactions “consistent with hawala-type circulation” point to a concerted criminal conspiracy rather than a routine accounting lapse. It added that the involvement of serving officials within the division indicates a breach of administrative trust.
Rejecting the argument that most applicants are private persons with no official position, the court held that the money trail prima facie shows shared participation, and that release on bail at this stage may result in tampering with digital evidence, influencing witnesses, and frustrating further investigation.
Relying on Supreme Court precedent that economic offences form a category apart for bail considerations, the court concluded that the pleas were “bereft of merit” and that liberty cannot be invoked to shield those suspected of causing substantial loss to the State exchequer. Consequently, all bail and anticipatory bail applications were dismissed, and interim bail protections, wherever earlier granted, were brought to an end, leaving the investigating agency free to proceed in accordance with law. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
