Jharkhand High Court
Bijay Prakash vs State Of Jharkhand Thr Cbi on 1 August, 2011
Author: Prashant Kumar
Bench: Prashant Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 5270 of 2011
...
Binay Prakash ... ... Petitioner
V e r s u s
State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. ... ... Opposite Party
...
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR.
...
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate.
For the State (C.B.I.) : Md. Mokhtar Khan, Advocate.
...
04/01.08.2011Bail application filed by Binay Prakash, is moved by Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Md. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel for the C.B.I. Mr. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel for the C.B.I. prayed for time, which was opposed by petitioner on the ground that petitioner is in custody and C.B.I. is taking time only with a view to harass petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, specially in view of fact that earlier C.B.I. was given time to file counter affidavit, but same has not filed and no cogent reason given for the same, prayer of C.B.I. rejected.
It appears that on the basis of direction given by this Court, an F.I.R. lodged by the Registrar General with the C.B.I. alleging therein that in connivance with different builders, officers of RRDA were sanctioning map illegally after taking illegal gratification. It appears that in view of said F.I.R., C.B.I. registered a case under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the I.P.C., Section 13(2) read with 13 (1)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 52 & 55 of the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act.
It is alleged that petitioner, who is Managing Director of Ashlesha Corporation Ltd. had constructed Hotel on Plot no. 1736 and taking advantage of Plot no. 1735, which is under dispute. It is further alleged that petitioner had given illegal gratification to the officers of RRDA for sanctioning of map.
It is submitted by Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, that it is an admitted position that petitioner purchased Plot no. 1736 of VillageChadri in the District of Ranchi from the 2 owner of the said Plot. It is further submitted that there is a dispute between Ranchi Municipal Corporation and erstwhile owner with respect to title of said land. It is further submitted that the title of petitioner's vendor has been declared by the competent court and the same was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, there is no dispute with respect to ownership of petitioner on the said plot. It is then submitted that the petitioner's company applied for sanction of map for construction of building of the Hotel on Plot no. 1736 and accordingly map was sanctioned. Thereafter building was constructed on Plot no. 1736. It is also submitted that as per the regulation of RRDA while constructing the building petitioner has left set back on Plot no. 1736 as required under byelaws. Accordingly, it is submitted that even assuming that if there is any violation of bye laws of RRDA with respect to parking place, same is punishable under Sections 52 & 55 of the RRDA Act, which are bailable offences. So far allegation of Section 420 I.P.C. is concerned, it is submitted that dispute is between petitioner and the petitioner's vendor. It is submitted that vendor of petitioner has not filed any case for setting aside of ratification deed. It is further submitted that a title suit is pending in the civil court with respect to Plot no. 1735.
Md. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel for the C.B.I. appearing for the C.B.I. opposed the bail prayer and submitted that though the map of the building in question was sanctioned on Plot no. 1736, but petitioner after taking the benefit of Plot no. 1735 had constructed the building. It is submitted that if ultimately the Plot no. 1735 is declared to be the property of Municipal Corporation then sanction of map become illegal. It is also submitted that the circumstances enumerated above will show that petitioner had got the map sanctioned from RRDA by giving illegal gratification to the officers of RRDA.
Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. Admittedly, petitioner has right, title and interest over Plot no. 1736 on which the building in question was constructed. It is also not in dispute that the said building was constructed on the basis 3 of map sanctioned by RRDA. Thus, even assuming that there is any deviation in construction of building from map sanctioned by RRDA then only offence under Sections 52 & 55 of the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act is made out, which are bailable offences. Admittedly, petitioner is not a public servant, therefore, Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not applicable. So far Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, nothing has been brought on record to show that petitioner gave illegal gratification to any officer of RRDA for sanctioning of map. Thus, as per the record of this case at this stage there is nothing on record from which it can be inferred that an offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is also made out. So far Section 420 of the I.P.C. is concerned, it appears that vendor of petitioner has not filed any case for setting aside of ratification deed. Thus, the said ratification deed is valid unless the same is set aside by competent court. Moreover, the record reveals that a title suit is pending with respect to Plot no. 1735.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I allow this application and direct court below to enlarge the petitioner on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri N.N. Singh, learned Special Judge, C.B.I., ACB, Ranchi, in connection with CBI ACB Ranchi Case No. RC 03 (A)/2011R. (Prashant Kumar, J.) sunil/