Rampujan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. .... ... on 11 May, 2018

[Cites 35, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Rampujan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. .... ... on 11 May, 2018

Bench: Anant Bijay Singh

                          1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                A.B.A.No. 573 of 2017
Rampujan Singh                         ..... Petitioner
                   Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Anr.        .... Opposite parties
                     With
                A.B.A.No. 1890 of 2017
Bashishtha Dubey @ Bashisth Dubey      ..... Petitioner
                   Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Anr.        .... Opposite parties
                     With
                A.B.A.No. 5398 of 2017
Praveen Kumar Sinha                    ..... Petitioner
                   Versus
The State of Jharkhand                 .... Opposite parties
                     With
                A.B.A.No. 1028 of 2017
Sanjeev Kumar Sinha                    ..... Petitioner
                   Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Anr.        .... Opposite parties
                     With
                A.B.A.No. 1625 of 2017
Jugal Thakur @ Yugal Thakur            ..... Petitioner
                   Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Anr.        .... Opposite parties
                     With
                A.B.A.No. 2376 of 2017
1. Jagdish Boipai
2. Johan Bodra                         ..... Petitioners
                   Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Anr.        .... Opposite parties
                     With
                A.B.A.No. 2405 of 2017
1. Sona Muni Gundua
2. Suresh Chandra Mahato               ..... Petitioners
                   Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Anr.        .... Opposite parties
                     With
                A.B.A.No. 2755 of 2017
Pabitra Mohan Mandal                   ..... Petitioner
                   Versus
The State of Jharkhand                 .... Opposite party
                     ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

---------

For the Petitioners :M/S K.S.Nanda, Prabhat Kr.

Sinha, A. K.Chaturvedy, H.K.Shikarwar, Anjani Kr., Krishanu Ray, Ravi Prakash, adv.

For the ACB            : Mr. T.N.Verma, Special PP
For the State          : Ld. Advocate General & APP(M/s
                       Ashish Jha, Sanjay Kr. Pandey-2,
                                             2


                                            Anand Kr. ,Rakesh
                                            Kumar, Mukesh Kumar,
                                            Priyadarshi, Deepak Kumar)

                               ---------
C.A.V. on 23.04.2018                             Pronounced on 11/ 05/2018


          All   these   anticipatory        bail      applications        were   heard

together and are being disposed of by this common order in view of common question of law involved in these cases.

The common question of law involved in these cases are that:-

1. Whether, after constitution of the Anti Corruption Beaureau, Jharkhand in terms of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 whereby Special Police Stations have been created for investigation of the cases filed under Prevention of Corruption Act and Special Courts have been constituted for speedy trial of the cases, the ACB, Jharkhand has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate such cases ?

2. Whether district police, after constitution of Anti Corruption Beaureau, special police stations and special courts, the district police still has the power to investigate the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act ?

Provisions of Law:-

Section 2(s) of the Cr.P.C. reads as under :-

2(s)"police station" means any post or place declared generally or specially by the State Government, to be a police station, and includes any local area specified by the State Government in this behalf;

Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read as under:-

3. Power to appoint special Judges(1) The 3 Central Government or the State Government may, by notification in the.

Official Gazette, appoint as many special Judges as may be necessary for such area or areas or for such case or group of cases as may be specified in the notification to try the following offences, namely: -

(a) any offence punishable under this Act;

and

(b) any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences specified in clause (a).

(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a special Judge under this Act unless he is or has been a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

4. Cases triable by special Judges-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or in any other law for the time being in force, the offences specified in sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be tried by special Judges only.

(2) Every offence specified in sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be tried by the special Judge for the area within which it was committed, or, as the case may be, by the special Judge appointed for the case, or where there are more special Judges than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government.

(3) When trying any case, a special Judge 4 may also try any offence, other than an offence specified in section 3, with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973, be charged at the same trial.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a special Judge shall, as far as practicable, hold the trial of an offence on day-to-day basis.

Brief facts of the cases:-

ABA Nos. 573/2017(Rampujan Singh) & ABA No.1890/2017 (Bashishtha Dubey @ Bashisth Dubey) The petitioners in these two anticipatory bail applications are apprehending their arrest in connection with Sindri P.S. Case No.84/2011 under Sections 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 419 420 and 120B of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act which has been registered on the basis of complaint given by one Baleshwar Singh being Complaint No.1820/2011 before CJM, Dhanbad, which was forwarded to the Officer-In-Charge, Sindri Police Station and the case was instituted as Sindri P.S. Case No.84/2011. As per the complaint, it is alleged that the accused persons named in the complaint including the petitioners were illegally appointed in the Notified Area Committee, Sindri under a conspiracy and all of them committed the offence of cheating, misappropriation of government funds by indulging themselves. Complainant earlier had filed W.P(PIL) No.5349/10, which was dismissed on 6.12.2010 with an observation that the petitioner (complainant herein) may approach the concerned police station for lodging an F.I.R for the alleged criminal acts. It is further alleged that the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad vide Letter No.1803 dated 29.08.1996 directed the Executive Officer, Notified Area committee, Sindri to stop illegal payment of salary to employees who were appointed during the period 1960-70 and whose service books were opened in the year 1989, but the same was not complied with and illegal payments to all such employees were 5 continued to be made and upon their retirement, they have been paid their retrial benefits. It is further alleged that there was financial irregularities committed at Notified Area committee, Sindri which is also disclosed from the Audit Report for the year 1993-94 and 1996-97 causing loss of huge public exchequer. On the basis of these allegations, present case has been lodged.

ABA No.1028/2017 (Sanjeev Kumar Sinha) & ABA No. 5398/17 (Praveen Kumar Sinha) Petitioners in these two anticipatory bail applications are apprehending their arrest in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.335/2016, corresponding to G.R. No.1134/2016, registered under Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B 406 of the IPC read with Section 8, 9,10,11 13(2) of the P.C. Act which has been registered on the basis of written report given by one Gourang Mahto, District Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh, alleging therein that there were irregularities in making payment of compensation to the land holder under Mandu Khata No.126, Plot no.2677, area 1.92 acres, whose lands were acquired for widening the road N.H.33 and the petitioners namely, Praveen Kumar Sinha, and Sanjeev Kuimar Sinha were working as Nazir and Head Clerk during the aforesaid period.

ABA No.1625/17 (Jugal Thakur @ Yugal Thakur) Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Barkatha P.S. Case No.168 of 2016, registered under Section 420 of IPC and Section 8 and 9 of the Anti Corruption Act.

The present case has been registered on the basis of written report given by Shalendra Kumar alleging therein that on 15.12.2016, he received a direction from Circle Officer, Barhi to inspect the school of the petitioner, who was Headmaster of the school. During inspection, it was found that students of class 10 namely, Sanju Kumari, Laxshmi Kumari and Aditya Kumar were instructed to give Rs.760/- for the matriculation form whereas according to the Jharkhand Academic Council, the prescribed fee for matriculation form is Rs.560/- for male students and Rs.435/- for female students. On the basis of these allegations, the present case has been instituted.

ABA No.2376/17 (Jagdish Boipai & Johan Bodra) Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Tebo P.S. Case No.02 of 2017, corresponding to G.R.No.45 of 2017, registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

The present case has been registered on the basis of written report given by B.D.O., Bandgaon Block, informed by DDC, West Singhbhum alleging therein that some irregularities have been committed by Gram Sevak (Petitioner No.1) and Mukhiya (petitioner No.2) of Tebo Panchayat in purchasing Solar Lights and Water Tank. It is further alleged that all the materials should be purchased from JEDDA and DGS and D rate in purchasing the same was not submitted which is against the financial rule of State Govt. causing loss to public exchequer. Hence, the present case has been lodged.

ABA No.2405/2017 (Sona Muni Gundua & Suresh Chandra Mahato) Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Goilkera P.S. Case No.4 of 2017 corresponding to G.R.No.24 of 2017, registered under Sections 409 and 34 of the IPC.

The present case has been instituted on the basis of written report given by BDO, Goilkera-informant, alleging therein that as per the Complaint made by Chief Minster's Jansambad Grievance, 34 solar lights were to be installed in the entire panchayat from the fund of 14th Finance Commission by the Mikhiya, but only four solar lights were installed and money for 30 solar lights was withdrawn, causing loss to public exchequer. On the basis of these allegations, instant case has been registered. ABA No.2755/2017 (Pabitra Mohan Mandal) Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chakradharpur P.S. Case No.128 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No.319 of 2016, registered under Sections 468/120 of the IPC read with Section 13(1)(D) of the P.C. Act and Section 25 of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act.

The present case has been instituted on the basis of written report given by B.D.O, Chakaradharpur, alleging therein that in the construction of goat shed under MANREGA at village Shilphori, the material has been supplied less than the estimated quantity and huge amount of public money has been misappropriated and hence, the present F.I.R. has been lodged.

ABA No.573/2017 was filed on 30.01.2017 and on 13.02.2017, the learned APP was directed to obtain legible case diary and the case was directed to be listed on 28.03.2017. On 28.03.2017, learned APP submitted that Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad is investigating this case and learned counsel for the petitioner drew th attention of this Court to Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

A supplementary counter affidavit was field on 04.05.2017 on behalf of the State bringing on record a copy of Memo No.49, Dhanbad dated 07.04.2017 written by SSP, Dhanbad addressed to Superintendent of Police ACB, Dhanbad whereby in terms of the direction of this Court, a request was made to take over the investigation of Sindri P.S. Case No.84/2011, 94/2011 and 102/2011. Thereafter, a reply was given by Superintendent of Police ACB, Dhanbad to SSP, Dhanbad vide Letter No.399/17 dated 19.04.2017 stating therein that appropriate order of this Court be made available for taking up the investigation of the cases by the ACB Jharkhand.

Thereafter, on 07.07.2017, ACB was impleaded as O.P.No.2 and ACB appeared in the case through Mr. T.N.Verma, Special PP.

On 09.10.2017, learned Special P.P for the ACB produced a letter dated 13.09.2017 issued under the signature of Inspector General (Headquarter) addressed to S.S.P., Ranchi, Jamshedpur and Dhanbad wherein reference of the ACB, Ranchi Letter no. 11063 dated 06.09.2017 has been made, which reveals that the Superintendents of Police, Chaibasa and Ramgarh have directly corresponded to the ACB for investigation of the case.

Another Letter dated 16.09.2017 issued under the signature 8 of Additional Director General of Police, ACB, Ranchi addressed to the Director General -cum -Inspector General of Police, Ranchi was produced which has taken note of different letters written directly by the Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa to the Additional Director Office, ACB with request for taking investigation of the cases mentioned in the letter.

In the said letter, it has also been directed that the Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa and Ramgarh may be informed not to make any correspondence in future directly with the ACB for transfer of Prevention of Corruption Act cases, rather the correspondence should be made to the Home, Secretary / Principal Secretary, Coordination / Cabinet Vigilance.

Submissions On 09.10.2017, the learned Advocate General appeared and sought adjournment for taking instruction from Principal Secretary, Coordination / Cabinet Vigilance and further submitted that he will clarify the mater as to whom the Superintendent of Police shall make correspondence, if the case is related to Prevention of Corruption Act.

On 23.11.2017, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment reported in the case of A. C. Sharma -Vs- Delhi Administration (1973) 1 SCC 726 and referred to paragraphs 14 and 15 which are as under;-

14. Turning now to the Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947), we find that this Act was enacted in March, 1947 several months after the enactment of the D. S. P. E. Act for the more effective prevention of bribery and corruption. By virtue of Section 3 of the Act an offence under Section 165-A, Indian Penal Code was made a cognizable offence for the purposes of Criminal Procedure Code notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in that Code. Section 4 provides for presumption in certain cases. Section 5 defines criminal misconduct and also provides for punishment for such offences. It further provides for punishment for habitual commission of offences under Sections 162, 163 and 165, Indian Penal Code and also renders punishable attempts 9 to commit some offences. Section 5 is expressly stated to operate in addition to and not in derogation of other laws. Section 5-A which is of importance may here be set out :

"5-A. Investigation into cases under this Act :

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, no Police Officer below the rank :-

(a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, of an Inspector of Police :

(b) in the Presidency-towns of Calcutta and Madras, of an Assistant Commissioner of Police;

(c) in the Presidency Town of Bombay, of a Superintendent of Police; and

(d) elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, shall investigate any offence punishable under Section

161. Section 165, or Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 5 of this Act without the order of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefor without a warrant :

Provided that if a Police Officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorised by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, he may also investigate any such offence without the order of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make arrest therefor without a warrant :

Provided further that an offence referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 shall not be investigated without the order of a Police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. (2) If, from information received or otherwise, a Police officer has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered to investigate under sub-

section (1) and considers that for the purpose of investigation or inquiry into such offence, it is necessary to inspect any bankers books, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, he may inspect any bankers books in so far as they relate 10 to the accounts of the person suspected to have committed that offence or of any other person suspected to be holding money on behalf of such 919 person, and take or cause to be taken certified copies of the relevant entries therefrom, and the bank concerned shall be bound to assist the Police officer in the exercise of his powers under this sub-section :

Provided that no power under this sub-

section in relation to the accounts of any person shall be exercised by a Police Officer below the rank of a Superintendent of Police, unless he is specially authorised in this behalf by a Police Officer of or above the rank of a Superintendent of Police.

Explanation :- In this sub-section, the expressions bank and bankers books shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891."

Sub-section (1) of this section, while regulating the competence of the officers both of D. S. P. E. and of the regular Police force to investigate offences to the extent considered necessary, overrides the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. It expressly prohibits Police officers including those of the D. S. P. E., below certain ranks from investigating into offences, under Sections 161, 165 and 165-A, Indian Penal Code and under Section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, without orders of Magistrates specified therein and from effecting arrests for those offences without a warrant. The plain meaning of this sub-section appears to be that Inspectors of Police of D. S. P. E. in all places, Assistant Commissioner of Police in the Presidency Towns of Calcutta and Madras.

Superintendents of Police in the Presidency Town of Bombay, and Deputy Superintendents of Police in all places, other than Presidency Towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, are authorised to investigate into the offences mentioned therein. The word "elsewhere" in Clause (d) does not indicate, as was contended by Mr. Anthony that a Deputy Superintendent of Police is debarred from investigating offences mentioned in this clause even when so ordered by a Magistrate of the First Class in the areas in which D. S. P. E. is also empowered 11 to function. The word "elsewhere" in Clause (d) appears to us to refer only to the three Presidency towns mentioned in Clauses (b) and (c). This sub-section, therefore, does not confer sole power on D. S. P. E. to investigate into the offences mentioned therein to the complete exclusion of the regular Police force. It is merely concerned with the object of making provision for safeguarding against arbitrary use of power of investigation by officers below certain ranks, so that public servants concerned are saved from frivolous harassment at the hands of disgruntled persons. In this connection it is also noteworthy that apart from the restriction contained in Sec. 5A (1) the applicability of the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code to the proceedings in relation to the aforesaid offences is, subject to certain modifications contained in Section 7-A, expressly recognised. The schemes of the two enactments, namely, the D. S. P. E. Act, 1946 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, suggest that they are intended to serve as supplementary provisions of law designed to function harmoniously in aid of each other and of the existing regular Police investigating agencies for effectively achieving the object of successful investigation into the serious offences mentioned in Section 5-A without unreasonably exposing the Public servant concerned to frivolous and vexatious proceedings. Mr. Nariman also drew our attention to D. O. No. 21/8/63-CD dated October 5, 1963, addressed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to the Inspectors General of Police inviting their attention to the Government of India Resolution No. 4/31/61-T dated April 1, 1963 establishing the Central Bureau of Investigation consisting of six Divisions to assist the State Police Forces. The authority of Central Bureau is stated therein to have been derived from the D. S. P. E. Act. In this letter para 6 reads :

"6. In this connection it may also be mentioned that, on account of inadequacy of staff, it is not possible for the S. P. E. Division to take up every one of the cases which might fall under the categories mentioned in the Annexure to the Government of India Resolution and 12 which might be considered suitable for investigation by the S. P. E. Division. A certain discretion has, therefore, to be exercised in taking up cases for investigation. In some instances it may not be possible for it to take up even those cases which are committed by Central Government servants, e.g., petty cases of theft, misappropriation, cheating. Such cases could be dealt with more easily and more expeditiously by the local Police which has concurrent jurisdiction over these cases also."

In para 7 it is stated that for successful investigation of cases it is most essential that a quick decision is taken about the Agency which has to investigate them. One of the Agencies mentioned therein in S. P. E. Division of the C. B. I. In para 8 it is stated that in respect of cases involving Public Servants or Public Concerns there is an administrative arrangement and understanding between the S. P. E. and the State Police about the manner in which they are to be dealt with so as to avoid difficulties and delays. This para then refers to the existing procedure and practice which, it is suggested, should continue to be valid in future. No doubt, this letter contains only administrative instructions but it clearly shows the construction placed during all these years by the administrative officers concerned with administering this law on the provisions of the S. P. E. Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act. If the view stated in this letter is not clearly against the language and scheme of these Acts then it is entitled to due consideration and has some persuasive value. The contention raised by Mr. Anthony that Delhi not being a State but only a Union territory, the directions contained in D. O. No. 21/8/63- GD are inapplicable and that in Delhi it is only the D. S. P. E. which has exclusive authority to investigate into the offences mentioned in Section 5-A is not easy to accept. Reference to the State Police force in that D. O. in our view includes the Police force of the Union territory of Delhi.

15. As the foregoing discussion shows the investigation in the present case by the Deputy Superintendent of Police 13 cannot be considered to be in any way unauthorised or contrary to law. In this connection it may not be out of place also to point out that the function of investigation is merely to collect evidence and any irregularity or even illegality in the course of collection of evidence can scarcely be considered by itself to affect the legality of the trial by an otherwise competent Court of the offence so investigated. In H. N. Rishbud & Inder Singh v. State of Delhi, (1955) 1 SCR 1150 it was held that an illegality committed in the course of investigation does not affect the competence and jurisdiction of the Court for trial and where cognizance of the case has in fact been taken and the case has proceeded to termination the invalidity of the preceding investigation does not vitiate the result unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. When any breach of the mandatory provisions relating to investigation is brought to the notice of the Court at an early stage of the trial the Court will have to consider the nature and extent of the violation and pass appropriate orders for such reinvestigation as may be called for, wholly or partly, and by such officer as it considers appropriate with reference to the requirements of Section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1952. This decision was followed in Munna Lal v. The State of U. P., Criminal Appeals Nos. 102-104 of 1961, D/- 17-4-1963. (Reported in AIR 1964 SC 28) where the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali, AIR 1959 SC 707 was distinguished. The same view was taken in the State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Venugopal, (1964) 3 SCR 742 and more recently in Khandu Sonu Dhobi v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 1969, D/- 15-2-1972 (reported in AIR 1972 SC 958). The decisions of the Calcutta, Punjab and Saurashtra High Courts relied upon by Mr. Anthony deal with different points : in any event to the extent they contain any observations against the view expressed by this Court in the decisions just cited those observations cannot be considered good law.

The learned counsels for the petitioners relying upon the aforesaid judgment passed in the case of A.C. Sharma (supra) submitted that Anti Corruption Beaureau is not required to investigate 14 these cases as the district police is competent to investigate these cases lodged under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Learned Advocate General appeared and made submissions that he has taken instructions from the Principal Secretary, Coordination / Cabinet Vigilance Department with regard to taking up the investigation of the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act under which ACB functions and is competent to take up the matter. He further submitted that if this Court directs the State Coordination / Cabinet Vigilance Department under which the ACB falls, the ACB is ready to investigate the cases in accordance with law.

On the other hand, the learned Spl. P.P appearing for the ACB submitted that the decision referred by the learned counsels for the petitioners is not applicable in the instant cases as in the judgment referred on behalf of the petitioner, the question of law was raised at the appellate stage before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the police has also power to investigate the case under the prevention of corruption Act, whereas all the instant cases are at the nascent stage of investigation and keeping in view the technicalities, the ACB is ready to take over the cases on the direction of this Court.

ABA No. 573 of 2017 (Rampujan Singh) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence whatsoever as the petitioner was legally appointed in the Notified Area Committee, Sindri and he was given confirmation and fixation of pay and the petitioner has retired from the service on 31.05.2010 after completion of 60 years of age before registration of the case.

It is further submitted that the informant/complainant had filed four other criminal cases against employees of NAC, Sindri on similar allegations with some minor changes. The first case which has been filed by the complainant against the petitioner is Sindri P.S. Case No.34/2004, corresponding to G.R. No.1556/04 for the offences under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC which is still pending and in which charge sheet has already been submitted and the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions 15 Judge, Dhanbad in ABP No.326/04.

Thereafter, the complainant has filed another complaint being C.P. Case No.72/06 with same set of allegations and the court below made enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C and the complainant was examined and when he failed to produce any evidence in support of his case, he withdrew the same on 23.06.2008.

That the complainant had filed another complaint being C.P. Case No.542/05 with same set of allegation which was dismissed by the court below with an observation that no case is made out against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner deserves to be released on anticipatory bail.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State for bringing on record the Letter No.49, dated 07.04.2017 written by SSP, Dhanbad addressed to Superintendent of Polcie, ACB Dhaband for taking over the investigation of the cases.

It appears that litigation is going on between the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the I.O. of the concerned case including the ACB, Dhanbad, police stations are directed not to take any coercive steps against this petitioner without prior permission of this Court and if they desire to take coercive action against the petitioner for interrogation of the petitioner, they shall file I.A. application in anticipatory bail application upon which this Court will pass appropriate order. Petitioner is directed to cooperate with the investigation of the case.

ABA No.1890 of 2017 (Bashishtha Dubey @ Bashisth Dubey) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as the petitioner had been legally appointed in the Notified Area Committee, Sindri and he was given confirmation and fixation of pay and the petitioner has retired from the service after completion of 60 years of age i.e on 01.10.2013.

It is further submitted that the informant/complainant had filed four other criminal cases against employees of NAC, Sindri on similar allegations with some minor changes. The first case which has been filed by the complainant against the petitioner is Sindri P.S. Case 16 No.34/2004, corresponding to G.R. No.1556/04 for the offences under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC which is still pending, charge sheet has been submitted and the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in ABP No.326/04.

In view of the facts, the petitioner deserves to be released on anticipatory bail.

ABA No.1028/2017 (Sanjeev Kumar Sinha) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been made an accused only on the basis of suspicion as the petitioner was posted as Nazir in the office of the Land Acquisition Office, Ramgarh since July, 2015 and the Nazir has got no role to play in payment of the compensation amount to the land holders and the main role in the process of payment to the awardees 17 is upon the Dealing Assistant, Head Clerk, Kanoongo and District Land Acquisition Officer who are required to put their signatures over the award and the Nazir was only required to transfer the amount in the bank of the department and to maintain the account after payment and he has got no concern with any payment made to the awardees. Hence, he deserves to be released on anticipatory bail.

Learned APP opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and produced the case diary and referred paragraphs no.2, 12, 13, and 14 of the case diary and submitted that there were irregularities in making payment of compensation to awardees whose lands were acquired for N.H.33 as award of Rs.3,53,33,760/- was fixed for acquisition of 1.92 acres of land, but the compensation was withdrawn from HDFC Bank, Bandhan Bank and IDBI Bank by Suraj Barnwal and Kartik Manjhi by using forged and fabricated documents in connivance with the officers and staff of the Land Acquisition Office and the Branch Manager and other staffs of the banks and was paid to fake persons in place of the original awardees.

In view of the serious nature of allegations against the petitioner, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

ABA No. 5398/17 (Praveen Kumar Sinha) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been made accused only on the basis that he was posted as Head Clerk in the office of District Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh at the relevant point of time and he has no role to play in payment of the compensation amount to the land holders. He further submitted that on the basis of recommendation made by the Amin and C.O., entire payment was made. Hence, the petitioner deserves to be released on anticipatory bail.

Learned APP opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and produced the case diary and referred paragraphs no.2, 12, 13, and 14 of the case diary and submitted that there were irregularities in making payment of compensation to awardees whose lands were acquired for N.H.33 as award of Rs.3,53,33,760/- was fixed for 18 acquisition of 1.92 acres of land, but the compensation was withdrawn from HDFC Bank, Bandhan Bank and IDBI Bank by Suraj Barnwal and Kartik Manjhi by using forged and fabricated documents in connivance with the officers and staff of the Land Acquisition Office and the Branch Manager and other staffs of the banks and was paid to fake persons in place of the original awardees.

ABA No.1625 of 2017 (Jugal Thakur @ Yugal Thakur) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not taken extra charges for filing the matriculation examination form, rather he has taken the charges as per the provision under the Jharkhand Council's Regulation i.e.Rs.435/- for female students and Rs.560/- for male students.

Learned APP opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in para-36 of the case diary, the statements of the co-villagers have been recorded and they have supported the facts that the petitioner had taken charge of Rs.760/- per student for filing the matriculation examination form.

ABA No.2376/2017 (Jagdish Boipai & Johan Bodra) Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that petitioner no.1 is the Gram Sevak and petitioner no.2 is the Mukhiya of Tebo Panchayat and they had installed 22 pieces Solar Lights and one water tank and all these materials were supplied in lowest price. It is further submitted that no circular was supplied to the petitioners by the concerned department on the date or prior to purchasing of these materials, although as per the circular, articles were to be purchased from JEDDA and for purchasing articles, prior approval 19 was required.

Learned APP opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and referred para nos.4, 15, 23, 37, 38 48, 57, 76 of the case diary and submitted that 22 solar lights and one water tank were purchased in contrary to the circular of the Government. As per circular, the same should have been purchased from JEDDA, but the solar lights and water tank were purchased from M/s R.S. Services, Ranchi and no person had come from the company to provide service.

In this case, an affidavit has been filed by the Dy.S.P, Chaibasa annexing Lt. Nos.1571 dated 12.09.17, Lt. No. 1592 dated 19.08.17 and Lt. No. 2048 dated 07.10.2017 of the Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum Chaibasa address to the Additional Director General of Police, ACB, Jharkhand Ranchi and Police Inspector General, Head Quarter, Jharkhand Ranchi making request to take over ten cases including this case for better investigation.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to admit the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

ABA No.2405/2017 (Sona Muni Gundua & Suresh Chandra Mahato) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the 34 Solar Lights have been installed in the concerned panchayat area and Lt. No.1521/B dated 23.12.2016 issued by Deputy Development Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa whereby an explanation was called for as to why the solar lights were purchased from local market and till date, only 22 solar lights have been installed, falsifies the allegation of installing only four solar lights.

On the other hand learned APP opposing the prayer for bail referred to para-4, 16, 34, 43 59, 106, 107, 113 of the case diary and submitted that the 34 Solar lights were to be installed, but till date only 7 solar lights have been installed. He further submitted that the tender was not published as per Government Rule and the solar lights were not purchased from JEDDA causing loss to public exchequer.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to admit the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

ABA No.2755/2017 (Pabitra Mohan Mandal) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had supplied the entire material to the beneficiaries at their places as per the work order and the materials were verified by the Panchayat Sewak and Mukhiya and they had put their signatures on the bill and no objection was raised regarding supply of less materials and the case has been lodged after lapse of several months only harass to the petitioner.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail stand rejected.

Conclusion:-

In view of the discussions made above and the facts and circumstances prevailing in this case, I am of the considered opinion that question nos. 1 and 2 are not required to be answered in these cases and both the questions are left open to be decided in some other case.

But taking note of the facts that the investigations of all the cases i.e. Sindri P.S. Case No.84/2011, Ramgargh P.S. Case No.335/2016, Barkatha P.S. Case No.168 of 2016, Tebo P.S. Case No.02/2017, Goilkera P.S. Case No.4/2017, Chakardharpur P.S. Case No.128 of 2016 are at the preliminary stage and the Superintendents of Police of Dhanbad, Ramgarh, Hazaribagh, Chaibasa have also made a request to ACB, Jharkhand, Ranchi to take over the investigation and also in view of the submissions made by the learned Advocate General, I hereby direct the Principal Secretary, Cabinet / Coordination Vigilance Department, Ranchi to issue necessary order directing the ACB within the respective police stations where the cases have been lodged to take over the investigation of the aforesaid cases i.e. Sindri P.S. Case No.84/2011, Ramgargh P.S. Case No.335/2016, Barkatha P.S. Case No.168 of 2016, Tebo P.S. Case No.02/2017, Goilkera P.S. Case No.4/2017, Chakardharpur P.S. Case No.128 of 2016.

Further the ACB, Jharkhand, Ranchi is also directed to issue necessary directions in this regard after receipt of direction from the Cabinet/ Coordination Vigilance Department.

The aforesaid orders may be passed by the Principal Secretary, Cabinet / Coordination Vigilance Department, Ranchi within 16 weeks from the date of receipt/production of this order.

The Principal Secretary, Cabinet / Coordination Vigilance Department, Ranchi is directed to submit a compliance report to this Court within 18 weeks.

List this case after 18 weeks.

Let a copy of this order be handed over to the Advocate General, Special P.P. of ACB, Jharkhand, Ranchi for transmission of the same to the ACB, Jharkhand, Ranchi and Nodal Officers and also be sent to the Principal Secretary, Cabinet / Coordination Vigilance Department, Ranchi and to the Superintendents of Police of the concerned districts.

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Fahim/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court