Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Pratap Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through A.C.B. ... on 7 January, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2026:JHHC:224 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 10414 of 2025
Vijay Pratap Singh, aged about 63 years, son of Jineshwar Singh, resident of
Matwari, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand through A.C.B. ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Mritunjay Chaudhary, Advocate
For the A.C.B. : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate
Ms. Sanya Kumari, Advocate
-----
03/07.01.2026 Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the ACB.
2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Hazaribagh ACB P.S. Case No.09 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 409, 467, 468 (indicated as 469 in impugned order), 471, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code Section 13(2) and 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II cum Special Judge, Vigilance (A.C.B.) Hazaribag.
3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case however he has neither any dishonest intention nor any role in the alleged offence. He further submits that the petitioner has been implicated only because he was Power of Attorney holder of the land in question, which has been sold to different persons. He then submits that by the registered deed dated 25.02.1941, Seth Ganpat Rai Sarogi dedicated the land in question -1- B.A. No. 10414 of 2025 ( 2026:JHHC:224 ) admeasuring 2.75 acres in favour of deity Sri Sri Mahabir Ji and created a scheme of management through appointed Sewayat. He next submits that by a registered deed dated 29.10.1951, the settlor Sri Ganpat Rai Sarogi tried to revoke and annul the earlier deed of dedication dated 25.02.1941, however, the authority has not accepted the same. He submits that pursuant to that, the land was leased out and subsequently the Sewayats have filed the renewal petitions, which have been allowed and the Sewayats have given Power of Attorney to the petitioner and, thereafter, the petitioner along with Sudhir Kumar Singh has transferred the land. He also submits that the petitioner is in custody since 05.10.2025 and the charge-sheet has been submitted on 24.12.2025. He further submits that the petitioner was not taken for interrogation by the ACB. He also submits that the allegations are of the year 2009-10 and the case has been registered in the year 2025. According to him, there is no money trail so far as the petitioner is concerned. He then submits that the Government has granted permission and, thereafter, the land has been sold by the petitioner. He next submits that one of the co- accused Binod Chandra Jha, who was the Khas Mahal Officer at relevant time, has been granted regular bail by this Court. On these grounds, he submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner is only Power of Attorney holder and he is in custody and charge-sheet has been submitted, regular bail may kindly be allowed to the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the ACB vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner being the Power of Attorney holder, has manipulated all the things and has assured the purchasers that he is having high connection with the officers including -2- B.A. No. 10414 of 2025 ( 2026:JHHC:224 ) with the then Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag and he will facilitate everything for transfer of the land in question. He further submits that these facts are supported by the witnesses whose statements have come in the case diary under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He then submits that one witness, namely Sri Manish Narayan has stated that the land has been sold to 23 persons and this petitioner along with Sudhir Kumar Singh has approached Manish Narayan and stated that he will facilitate everything as he is having high connection including the then Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag. He next submits that same facts have also been deposed by the witnesses, namely, Smt. Priti Prasad and Smt. Nandrani Sinha and their statements are part of the case diary. He also submits that the investigating officer issued notices to the successor-in-interest and Sewayats, namely, Basanti Kumari Sethi, Raj Kumar Sethi, Indrajit Sethi and Rajesh Kumar Sethi, who are accused in the present case. He submits that the said notices were issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for participating in the investigation, but those persons have not participated in investigation. He further submits that in the investigation, it has been revealed that the said persons have given incorrect address of their residence i.e. at Kolkata and at present they are not traceable. He then submits that Sri Rajesh Sethi and Sri Indrajit Sethi have filed anticipatory bail petitions before the learned Special Judge, ACB, Hazaribag, which were rejected by the learned Court and in course of investigation, it has transpired that the address mentioned in those anticipatory bail petitions are incorrect. He next submits that so far as other two Sewayats, namely, Basanti Kumari Sethi and Uma Sethi are concerned, Uma Sethi has filed anticipatory bail -3- B.A. No. 10414 of 2025 ( 2026:JHHC:224 ) petition before the learned trial court giving incorrect address in the said petition also and even the anticipatory bail petition filed by the aforesaid Sewayats have been rejected by the learned trial court. He submits that during investigation it has transpired that Basanti Kumari Sethi has passed away 10 years back and the said fact is not confirmed because of non- cooperation of other co-accused. He also submits that this petitioner is not cooperating in revealing the correct address of two Sewayats. By way of inviting attention of the Court to paragraph 35 of the counter-affidavit filed by the ACB, he submits that in course of investigation, it has been revealed that approximately 5000 acres of land in the district of Hazaribag have been illegally transacted and the said lands in fact were belonging to and/or Forest land, Gair Majaruwa Aam, Sarkari Khas Mahal, Kaiser-e-hind, Lakheraj, Trust lands etc. He next submits that the entire land scams were done during the tenure of the co-accused Vinay Kumar Choubey, then Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag in conspiracy with other persons including the petitioner and these facts have come in paras 104 and 107 in case diary no.18. He also submits that the prayer for regular bail of Vinay Kumar Choubey has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.01.2026 in B.A. No.9602 of 2025. On these grounds, he submits that the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner may kindly be rejected.
5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the contents of the documents, which have been brought on record and the documents which have been produced in course of argument by the learned counsel appearing for the ACB, it transpires that one Sri Seth Ganpat Rai Sarogi by a registered deed dated 25.02.1941 dedicated the land -4- B.A. No. 10414 of 2025 ( 2026:JHHC:224 ) in question admeasuring 2.75 acres in favour of deity Sri Sri Mahavir Ji. Later on, Sri Seth Ganpat Rai has tried to cancel the said donation by the deed of the year 1951, however, that was not accepted by the authority and the Commissioner of North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribag vide order dated 12.12.1988 has ordered for renewal of the said deed in the name of deity only.
6. Hira Lal Sethi and Panna Lal Sethi are sons of Seth Ganpat Rai Sarogi and they have tried to transfer the land to third person, which was rejected by the Commissioner of North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag vide order dated 01.07.2000 and the said order was challenged by Basanti Kumari Sethi, Raj Kumar Sethi, Indrajit Sethi and Rajesh Kumar Sethi by filing C.W.J.C. No.4200 of 2000 and the High Court vide order dated 26.07.2005 has been pleased to reject the said writ petition holding that the successor-in-interest or any person who took the charge of Sewayat, had no right to transfer the land in question in favour of any other person and, accordingly, it has been held that the decision of Commissioner of North Chotanagpur Division refusing the grant of permission for transfer of leasehold land is correct. It transpires that even the order of the High Court has been ignored and the petitioner being the Power of Attorney holder has sold the land in question.
7. Three of the witnesses, namely, Sri Manish Narayan, Smt. Priti Prasad and Smt. Nandrani Sinha, whose statements have been recorded under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which have been produced by the learned counsel appearing for the ACB and they have deposed that the petitioner along with Sudhir Kumar Singh approached the purchasers to sell the land and the petitioner has also stated that he will -5- B.A. No. 10414 of 2025 ( 2026:JHHC:224 ) facilitate everything as he is having high connection and good relationship with the officers including the then Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag. The witnesses have also stated that the petitioner along with Sudhir Kumar Singh were found visiting the office of the then Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag frequently. The petitioner is Power of Attorney holder of the Sewayats, namely, Basanti Kumari Sethi, Raj Kumar Sethi, Indrajit Sethi and Rajesh Kumar Sethi. It has been pointed out in course of the argument by the learned counsel appearing for the ACB that those persons have even filed anticipatory bail petitions before the learned Court and they have given incorrect address, which has come in the investigation and the petitioner being the Power of Attorney holder, is not providing correct address of those persons in spite of the fact that he is in custody.
8. In paragraph 46 of the counter-affidavit filed by the ACB, it has been stated that the aforesaid witnesses in their statements, have stated that during the period from 01.04.2010 to 09.07.2015, an amount of Rs.3.16 Crores was deposited in cash in the bank account of Brahmastra Education Private Limited, in which, wife of Vinay Kumar Choubey, namely, Swapna Sanchita and her brother, namely, Shipij Trivedi (brother-in-law of Vinay Kumar Choubey) are the Directors in the said company. It has also been stated in the counter-affidavit that money trail is also being investigated by the ACB in view of the fact that has revealed in course of the investigation.
9. There is no doubt that filing of the charge-sheet is a material consideration while granting bail, however, the same is not the sole criterion to be taken into consideration as it has to be coupled with the facts and circumstances involved in the case. Here is a case, wherein, though the -6- B.A. No. 10414 of 2025 ( 2026:JHHC:224 ) charge-sheet has already been filed, however, the witnesses in the case diary have subsequently deposed the name of the petitioner and even attributed his specific role. The allegation against the petitioner is there of having Power of Attorney and sold the Government land to 23 persons in connivance with the then Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the ground of parity to the co-accused, namely, Binod Chandra Jha, who happened to be the Khas Mahal Officer at relevant point of time and he has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 05.01.2026 in B.A. No.9487 of 2025.
11. So far as parity is concerned, the law is well settled that the principle of parity is to be applied if the case on fact is exactly similar then only the principle of parity in the matter of passing order is to be passed but if there is difference in between the facts then the principle of parity is not to be applied. It is also well known that the Court cannot exercise its power in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail and only because another accused has been granted bail, the present petitioner is also entitled for bail if the present facts are not similar. So far as the case of Binod Chandra Jha is concerned, he has been granted bail considering that he has passed only two orders and during his tenure the land in question was not transferred. The land in question was transferred later on by the successor of the said Binod Chandra Jha. Further, he was aged about 70 years and retired in the year 2016 and he was having ailments. In those backgrounds, the said Binod Chandra Jha was granted regular bail by this Court.
-7- B.A. No. 10414 of 2025
( 2026:JHHC:224 )
12. What has been discussed herein above, prima facie it appears that the petitioner is a prime accused being Power of Attorney holder and in connivance with the then Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag, he has transferred the Government land. In view of these facts, the ground of parity is not made so far as this petitioner is concerned and, as such, the argument with regard to parity is, hereby, rejected.
13. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage and, hence, his prayer for regular bail is, hereby, rejected.
14. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 7th January, 2026 Ajay/ Uploaded on 8th January, 2026 -8- B.A. No. 10414 of 2025