Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh vs. The Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru The Superintendent Of Police, Dhanbad

Facts

The petitioner, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a CBI FIR alleging offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The FIR concerns alleged irregularities in the distribution of honorarium/intellectual fee/project fee arising from a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) effective from January 1, 2016, and 304 agreements executed thereunder. The petitioner, who served as Chief Scientist and Head of Research Group at CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad, contends that the distribution of funds was in accordance with CSIR guidelines and that he has been falsely implicated. He highlights that the CSIR Guidelines for Technology Transfer and Utilization of Knowledgebase-2017 govern the distribution of honorarium. The petitioner also notes that the recovery of the intellectual fee received by him is already underway and challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal. He argues that the selective implication of himself and the Director, while other council members are not accused, is unjustified.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. The reasoning is that the petitioner appears to have been in charge of the distribution of money to individuals and manpower, and a huge amount was disbursed arbitrarily without maintaining proper records and without any explanation regarding the contribution or role of each person to whom the amount was paid. The petitioner's explanation that the payments were made under the instruction of the co-accused was not accepted. The Court found that the petitioner's actions were in violation of the CSIR Guidelines, as huge amounts were disbursed without proper documentation of engagement/contribution to the project. This direct involvement of the petitioner in the arbitrary distribution of money, without maintaining records of engagement/contribution, distinguishes his case from that of the co-accused, Dr. P.K. Singh, who was granted anticipatory bail. The Court concluded that there is enough material on record to show the direct involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offense. Therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Key Issues

1. Whether the distribution of honorarium/intellectual fee/project fee by the petitioner, as Chief Scientist and Head of Research Group at CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad, was in accordance with the CSIR Guidelines for Technology Transfer and Utilization of Knowledgebase-2017 and the relevant MOU and agreements, thereby constituting no illegality or irregularity. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the distribution of funds was in compliance with the CSIR Guidelines, specifically Chapters 7 and 8, which outline the pattern of sharing money with staff. He refers to clauses detailing the distribution of honorarium from licensing of Intellectual Property, knowledgebase consultancy, and sponsored research projects. He argues that the MOU's validity and the execution of 304 agreements for shorter periods were not illegal. He also points out that the guidelines allow for no ceiling on honorarium since June 1, 2005, and that the recovery of funds is already in progress and challenged. He further argues that the selective implication of himself and the Director, while other Management Council members are not accused, is arbitrary. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state. However, the court's reasoning implies that the revenue/state's case is based on the alleged arbitrary disbursement of huge amounts without maintaining proper records and without explaining the contribution or role of each recipient.