Jharkhand High Court
Chhavi Ranjan vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 22 November, 2016
Author: Anant Bijay Singh
Bench: Anant Bijay Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A. B. A. No. 4005 of 2016
Chhavi Ranjan ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, through the Vigilance ..... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
-----
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K.Sinha, Sr. Adv.
For the Vigilance: Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Spl. P.P (Vigilance)
-----
04/22.11.2016Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 379/34/120B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 33/41 of the Indian Forest Act has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that five big Sagwan trees and one big Sisham tree were illegally cut from the Government premises of Zila Parishad, Koderma valued for several Lakhs. The matter was referred to the Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi. A preliminary enquiry was made by the Vigilance Bureau and it was detected that the aforesaid trees were cut at the behest of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Prior to lodging of this case, Markachho P.S.Case No. 83/2015 was instituted. The A.C.B had not taken over investigation of the aforesaid case, rather has instituted fresh case i.e. Vigilance P.S. Case No. 76/2015, which is in the teeth of the law laid down in the case of Amit Sah. Under Section 41A Cr.P.C, notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner had appeared and cooperated in the investigation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that pursuant to order dated 03.10.2016, the petitioner appeared before the I.O and got his statement recorded. The petitioner cooperated in the investigation. The final form has been submitted on 26.10.2016.
On the other hand, learned Spl. P.P (Vigilance) has opposed the petitioner's prayer for bail by filing counter affidavit. He referred to paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit and submitted that the witnesses Kailash Nath Pandey and Subodh Kumar Yadav in their statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C have supported the case of the prosecution. The witness Kaushal Kishore Thakur, the then D.D.C, Koderma has stated that the petitioner had asked him not to institute the named FIR and also pressurized him to change the written statement of the witnesses Kailash Nath Pandey and Subodh Kumar Yadav. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, he does not deserve the privilege of bail.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the above named petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned Court below within a period of two weeks. If he surrenders before the Court below within the aforesaid period, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri A. Dubey, learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi in connection with Vigilance Case No. 01/2016, arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 76/2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C and further that the petitioner shall deposit his Passport, if any, in the Trial Court.
Satish/- (ANANT BIJAY SINGH, J)