Millennium Post

Coalscam: Court grants bail to two pvt firm officials, others

A special court on Wednesday granted bail to three persons, including two directors of a private firm accused in a coal block scam case relating to alleged irregularities in allocation of a coal block in Jharkhand.

Special CBI Judge Bharat Parashar gave the relief to two directors M/s Pawanjay Steel and Power Ltd (PSPL) -- Gyanchand Prasad Agarwal and Umesh Prasad Agarwal, and S K Kanungo, Chief Manager (Marketing) of M/s Hari Machines Ltd (HML) after they appeared before the court in pursuance to summons.

The court had earlier summoned them and the firm as accused for alleged offences under section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 420 (cheating) of the IPC, saying “prima facie there were sufficient incriminating evidence on record warranting summoning of accused.” 

While granting them bail, the court noted that the accused were not arrested during the course of investigation and there was also no charge that they had not join the probe.

“I am of the considered opinion that the interest of justice will be suitably met if the accused persons are ordered to be released on bail upon their furnishing a personal bond and a surety bond each in the sum of Rs one lakh each, to the satisfaction of this Court,” the judge said.

The court, however, directed them not to leave the country without its prior permission and not tamper with evidence or approach prosecution witnesses. It supplied the copies of charge sheet to the accused and fixed the matter for December 19 for scrutiny of documents.

CBI had registered the case for the alleged offences of criminal conspiracy and cheating under the IPC and section of the Prevention of Corruption Act against PSPL, its officials, Kanungo and other unknown persons.

CBI prosecutor AP Singh opposed the bail pleas saying the accused were influential persons and could tamper with evidence and may also delay the trial.

CBI, however, had said that charge sheet against some other officials and public servants against whom it had initiated the probe, could not be filed as sufficient evidence could not be brought on record. 
Next Story
Share it