Skip to content


Vishnu Prasad Rai Vs. The State of Jharkhand Through Cbi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided On
AppellantVishnu Prasad Rai
RespondentThe State of Jharkhand Through Cbi
Excerpt:
1 in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi a.b.a. no. 4303 of 2015 vishnu prasad rai ….. petitioner versus the state of jharkhand, through the c.b.i ….. opposite party with a.b.a. no. 4594 of 2015 kamleshwari prasad singh @ kamleshwar prasad singh @ kamleshwari prasad singh ….. petitioner versus the state of jharkhand, through the c.b.i ….. opposite party with a.b.a. no. 4501 of 2015 jitendra singh @ jitendra pd. singh ….. petitioner versus the union of india, through the c.b.i ….. opposite party with a.b.a. no. 4269 of 2015 kishan deo das @ kishnadeo das ….. petitioner versus the union of india, through the c.b.i ….. opposite party with a.b.a. no. 3873 of 2015 virender bhardwaj @ birender bhardwaj ….. petitioner versus the state of jharkhand, through the c.b.i ….......
Judgment:

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4303 of 2015 Vishnu Prasad Rai ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand, through the C.B.I ….. Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 4594 of 2015 Kamleshwari Prasad Singh @ Kamleshwar Prasad Singh @ Kamleshwari Prasad Singh ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand, through the C.B.I ….. Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 4501 of 2015 Jitendra Singh @ Jitendra Pd. Singh ….. Petitioner Versus The Union of India, through the C.B.I ….. Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 4269 of 2015 Kishan Deo Das @ Kishnadeo Das ….. Petitioner Versus The Union of India, through the C.B.I ….. Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 3873 of 2015 Virender Bhardwaj @ Birender Bhardwaj ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand, through the C.B.I ….. Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 191 of 2016 Maheshwari Devi ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand, through the C.B.I ….. Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 4499 of 2015 Dinesh Kumar Mishra ….. Petitioner Versus The Union of India, through the C.B.I ….. Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 3779 of 2015 Madhusudan Jha ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand, through the C.B.I ….. Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 2387 of 2015 Birendra Kumar Rai ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand, through the C.B.I ….. Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 3792 of 2015 Sidharth Shankar Choudhary ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand, through the C.B.I ….. Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 3777 of 2015 Umakant Jha ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand, through the C.B.I ….. Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 969 of 2016 Sanjay Kumar Lal ….. Petitioner 2 Versus The State of Jharkhand, through the C.B.I ….. Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 3856 of 2015 Kanhaiya Jha ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand, through the C.B.I ….. Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 3855 of 2015 Rakesh Ranjan ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand, through the C.B.I ….. Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 856 of 2016 Deo Narayan Parihast ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand, through the C.B.I ….. Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 1067 of 2016 Jamun Mirdha @ Jamun Turi ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand, through the C.B.I ….. Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 555 of 2016 Lalan Kumar Mehra @ Lalan Mehra ….. Petitioner Versus The Union of India, through the C.B.I ….. Opposite Party ----- CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH ----- For the Petitioners: M/s Ritu Kumar, A.K.Choudhary, J.Mazumdar, V.K.Trivedi, O.N.Tiwary, Indrajit Sinha, Arpan Mishra, Gautam Rakesh, S.N.Tiwari, Vineet Prakash For the C.B.I: Mr. K.P.Deo, S.C ----- 09/03.10.2016 Since these anticipatory bail applications arise out of the same case i.e. R.C. Case No. 16(A)/2012-D, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, C.B.I, Dhanbad, the same are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. The petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 423/424/467/468/469/471/477- A/419/420/409/506/201/120-B/109 IPC, Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988, Section 25(A) of Santhal Pargana Regulation-II, 1886 and Section 53 of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. 3 This case was registered on the basis of the written complaint dated 31.10.2011 of Shri Raj Kumar Lakra, S.P, I/c, Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi regarding the alleged land scam in District-Deoghar of Jharkhand. At the request of the Government of Jharkhand, the investigation of this case was taken over by the C.B.I. After completion of the investigation, the C.B.I submitted the final form. Allegation against the petitioners A.B.A. No. 4303 of 2015 The petitioner-Vishnu Prasad Rai was working as Karamchari in Halka No.02 under Mohanpur Circle, Deoghar between 19.11.2005 to 30.01.2008. The entries in Register-II of Baijnathpur mauza regarding jamabandi No. 42/5 and 42/6 and dishonestly issue of rent receipt No. 1007422 and 1007423 both dated 22.01.2008 in favour of Deb Narayan Parihast accused was made during his tenure and was the custodian of all the revenue records. A.B.A. No. 4594 of 2015 The petitioner-Kamleshwari Prasad Singh was working as Record Keeper in District Record Room, Deoghar since 31.05.06 to 30.11.10. He was required to ensure that certified copies of the genuine records available in the record room are issued. But certified copy of fake forged record of mutation case No. 8/54-55 of Circle Office, Deoghar and Misc. Case No. 26/83-84 of Dasrath Rai & Ors. were issued from District Record Room, Deoghar under his signature and stamp. A.B.A. No. 4501 of 2015 The petitioner-Jitendra Singh was working as Nazir in the Circle Office, Mohanpur, Deoghar in 2008 and was the custodian of rent receipt books. The Book of Rent Receipt bearing No. 38/07-09 from serial number 1007401 to 1007450 was issued to Sri Suresh Chandra Mandal (not Karamchari of Baijnathpur mauza) who had returned the same to him (Jitendra Kumar Singh) whose acknowledgement/receipt to that effect is 4 available in the register. It is to be mentioned that the rent receipts Nos. 1007422 and 1007423 dated 22.01.2008 were illegally issued and are mentioned in the Index-II of Baijnathpur mauza in respect of JB No. 42/5 and 42/6. But the rent receipt Vol-38/07-08 is not available in the Circle Office, Mohanpur. A.B.A. No. 4269 of 2015 The petitioner-Kishan Deo Das was working as Head Clerk in Circle Office, Mohanpur, Deoghar during December 2006 to 20.01.2009. Memo Nos. 35/ra and 36/ra both dated 31.12.2007 signed by accused Birender Kumar Rai and addressed to accused Madhusudan Jha for issue of rent receipt in favour of accused Deb Narayan Parihast were dishonestly prepared and issued by him knowingly well that accused Madhusudan Jha had already retired from service in October 2007. A.B.A. No. 3873 of 2015 The petitioner-Virender Bhardwaj too, on the basis of Power of Attorney along with accused Kanhaiya Jha and accused Rakesh Ranjan dishonestly executed two sale deeds No. 588 & 589 both dated 14.03.2011 related to sale of non-transferable land. A.B.A. No. 191 of 2016 The petitioner-Maheshwari Devi (mother of accused Dhrub Narayan Parihast) has executed many sale deeds as vendor and sold/transferred non-transferable Government land and she is beneficiary of fruits of crime by way of receiving payments through her Bank account in criminal conspiracy with her accused son. A.B.A. No. 4499 of 2015 The petitioner-Dinesh Kumar Mishra was working as Revenue Karamchari in Mohanpur Circle, Deoghar during the period 2003 to 2011. He had fraudulently/dishonestly furnished false/incorrect report in respect of issue of Bhu Satyapan Certificate/NOC No. 93 dated 24.07.2008 in favour of accused Maheshwari Devi. He had also issued rent receipts in 5 favour of Maheshwari Devi though mutation was not done in her favour. He also fraudulently/dishonestly furnished false/incorrect report in respect of issue of Bhu Satyapan Certificate/NOC No. 51 dated 31.12.2007. A.B.A. No. 3779 of 2015 The petitioner-Madhusudan Jha was working as Karamchari in halka No.01 under Mohanpur Circle, Deoghar during April 2007 to October 2007 (till his retirement). Though he was not Karamchari of halka No.02, but he fraudulently/dishonestly submitted false/incorrect reports for issue of Bhu Satyapan Certificate/NOC Nos. 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 45 all dated 31.12.2007. A.B.A. No. 2387 of 2015 The petitioner-Birendra Kumar Rai was working as Circle Officer, Mohanpur Circle, Deoghar during 2007 to August 2008. He had dishonestly issued order vide Memo No. 35/ra & 36/ra both dated 31.12.2007 to accused Madhusudan Jha for issue of rent receipts to accused Dhrub Narayan Parihast after a gap of about 40 years. Sri Madhusudan Jha, accused had already retired from service in October 2007. Besides, on the basis of false reports of Madhusudan Jha, he dishonestly and fraudulently issued Bhu Satyapan Certificates/NOCs. He was the custodian of non-transferable/Government land in Mohanpur Circle in the capacity of Circle Officer, but contrary to this he issued 13 numbers of false/bogus NOCs under his signatures which was the basis of registration of transfer deeds of non-transferable/Government land. A.B.A. No. 3792 of 2015 The petitioner-Sidharth Shankar Choudhary was working as Circle Officer, Circle Office, Deoghar during the period July 2007 to October 2010 and was also holding additional charge of Circle Officer, Mohanpur, Deoghar during the relevant period. In the capacity of Circle Officer, Mohanpur he dishonestly allowed mutation of non-transferable land in 6 Bandha and Gaura mauza under Mohanpur Circle in Mutation Case Nos. 36, 37, 38 & 39 of 2010-11 and 109 & 110 of 2010-11. A.B.A. No. 3777 of 2015 The petitioner-Umakant Jha dishonestly executed sale deeds of non- transferable land on the basis of Power of Attorney issued to him in criminal conspiracy with accused Dhrub Narayan Parihast. A.B.A. No. 969 of 2016 The petitioner-Sanjay Kumar Lal dishonestly executed sale deeds of non-transferable land on the basis of Power of Attorney issued to him in criminal conspiracy with accused Dhrub Narayan Parihast. A.B.A. No. 3856 of 2015 The petitioner-Kanhaiya Jha has dishonestly executed sale deeds on the basis of power of attorney with accused Rakesh Ranjan for sale of non- transferable land in association with Dhrub Narayan Parihast, accused. A.B.A. No. 3855 of 2015 The petitioner-Rakesh Ranjan has dishonestly executed sale deeds on the basis of power of attorney with accused Kanhaiya Jha and Kuldeep Dutdwary for sale of non-transferable land in association with Dhrub Narayan Parihast, accused. A.B.A. No. 856 of 2016 The petitioner-Deo Narayan Parihast (father of accused Dhrub Narayan Parihast) has executed sale deeds as vendor and sold/transferred non-transferable Government land in sale certificate No.13 of 1937 and he is also the beneficiary of the fruits of crime. His handwritings over Bhu Satyapan Certificate/NOC have also been confirmed by GEQD. A.B.A. No. 1067 of 2016 From perusal of the record, it appears that although the petitioner- Jamun Mirdha was named as accused in the complaint, but during course of investigation, the CBI did not find any material against him and he was not sent up for trial. However, learned Special Judge, C.B.I differing from 7 the opinion of the C.B.I, has taken cognizance against him for the offences under the alleged Sections on 24.02.2015. The C.B.I has not submitted final form against him. A.B.A. No. 555 of 2016 The petitioner-Lalan Kumar Mehra was working as Circle Inspector in Circle Office, Mohanpur, Deoghar during August 2003 to February 2009. He dishonestly accepted the false reports of Madhusudan Jha, accused and recommended for issue of Bhu Satyapan Report/NOC in 13 instances. Submission on behalf of the petitioners A.B.A. No. 4303 of 2015 Learned counsel for the petitioner-Vishnu Prasad Rai submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He joined as Halka Karamchari at Maheshpur Circle in the year 1981 and on 12.07.2005 he took over the charge of Halka No.2 and thereafter on 01.01.2008 he took over the charge of Halka No.3 as Halka Karamchari. The alleged two rent receipts are for Halka No.2 and not for Halka Nos.2/3 where the petitioner was posted. Since lastly he was posted at Halka No.3 from 30.01.2008 from where he superannuated w.e.f 30.11.2009, the question of issuing the alleged two rent receipts by him is false and imaginary. A.B.A. No. 4594 of 2015 Learned counsel for the petitioner-Kamleshwari Prasad Singh submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is alleged that a certified copy of Mutation Case No. 8/1954-55 of Circle Office, Deoghar and Misc. No. 26/1983-84 of Dashrath Rai and others was issued from District Record Room, Deoghar under his signature and stamp. The petitioner was the Record Keeper of Record Room, Deoghar from 31.05.2006 to 30.11.2010 i.e. date of his retirement and during the aforesaid period, large number of certified copies were issued from his office, out of them one of them is alleged to be forged and fabricated. 8 There is absolutely no evidence on record to make out a case under the alleged Sections. A.B.A. No. 4501 of 2015 Learned counsel for the petitioner-Jitendra Singh has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case merely on suspicion. It has been alleged that the petitioner was working as Clerk (Nazir) in Mohanpur Circle during the year 2008 and was custodian of rent receipts book. The book of rent receipts bearing No. 38/07-09 from Sl. No. 1007401 to 1007450 was issued to Sri Suresh Chandra Mandal (not Karamchari of Baijnathpur Mauza) who had returned the same to the petitioner. Acknowledgement/receipt to rent receipts No. 1007422 and 1007423 dated 22.01.2008 were illegally issued and are mentioned in the Index-II of Baijnathpur Mauza in respect of JB No. 42/5 and 42/6 but the rent receipts volume 39/07-08 is not available in the Circle Office, Mohanpur. The petitioner was posted as Nazir in Mohanpur Circle from 09.09.2005 to 21.05.2011 and after his transfer, the charge of the office of the petitioner had been handed over to Sri Rajesh Kumar, Nazir and at that time all the materials as well as registers including rent receipt books (used or unused) were found very much intact. After his transfer, a letter was served on the petitioner regarding the aforementioned rent receipt books. A.B.A. No. 4269 of 2015 Learned counsel for the petitioner-Kishan Deo Das has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case The petitioner as the Head Clerk of the Circle Office, Mohanpur, Deoghar was not the custodian of service book of all the Halka Karamchari and other staffs and as such the petitioner had no knowledge about the date of retirement of the said Halka Karamchari and it is absolutely false and concocted allegation that the petitioner prepared the letters bearing No. 35ra and 36ra, both dated 31.02.2007. A.B.A. No. 3873 of 2015 9 Learned counsel for the petitioner-Virender Bhardwaj submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is alleged that being a power of attorney holder, the petitioner along with Kanhaiya Jha and Rakesh Ranjan executed two sale deeds bearing Nos. 588 and 589 dated 14.03.2011 on behalf of Tarun Rai who is land owner. Tarun Rai had issued ‘Power of Attorney’ in favour of the petitioner, but Tarun Rai has not been made accused by the CBI. A.B.A. No. 191 of 2016 Learned counsel for the petitioner-Maheshwari Devi submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. She is a house wife and aged about 70 years. She has been named in this case as she is the mother of the accused Dhrub Narayan Prarihast. From perusal of the final form, it appears that none of the documents, which is existing in the name of the petitioner, has been created by the petitioner. Co-accused Bhogendra Thakur has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in A.B.A. No. 3830/2015. A.B.A. No. 4499 of 2015 Learned counsel for the petitioner-Dinesh Kumar Mishra submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. For issuance of rent receipt, the Karamchari has to peruse the Register-II and if in Register- II, Jamabandi of a Raiyat is running, then the Karamchari is duty bound to receive the rent from the Raiyats and to issue rent receipts. Accordingly, the petitioner issued the alleged two rent receipts. The petitioner had no role to play in preparing the alleged letter bearing Nos. 35ra and 36ra, both dated 31.02.2007. A.B.A. No. 3779 of 2015 Learned counsel for the petitioner-Madhusudan Jha submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner was working as Karamchari in Halka No.01 under Mohanpur Circle, Deoghar during April, 2007 to October, 2007. The petitioner was a public servant of 10 utmost integrity and served more than 35 years meritorious service and retired on 31.10.2007. The petitioner has been made accused after seven years of his retirement and the alleged sale deed was executed after three years of issuance of the Bhu Satyapan Report/NOC by the petitioner, which has validity of only 6 months. A.B.A. No. 2387 of 2015 Learned counsel for the petitioner-Birendra Kumar Rai has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It has been alleged that the petitioner approved the recommendation on 31.10.2007 and No Objection Certificate was issued under his signature vide Memo No.41 dated 31.12.2007 for transfer of plots, including Plot No.531. During the period in question the petitioner was not the custodian of non- transferable Government land in Mohanpur Circle. Therefore, it is totally false to say that the petitioner has ever approved the recommendation and No Objection Certificate was issued under his signature. A.B.A. No. 3792 of 2015 Learned counsel for the petitioner-Sidharth Shankar Choudhary submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner was working as Circle Officer, Deoghar and Mohanpur at the relevant point of time. It has been alleged that he had passed the orders in Mutation Case Nos. 36, 37, 38 & 39 of 2010-11 and Mutation Case Nos. 109 & 110 of 2010-11. All these cases are related to the lands situated in Mauza Bandha under Mohanpur Circle. None of the lands falls under Mauja Gaura, as alleged by the C.B.I. In all the cases, applications for mutation were made by the purchasers of land after having the sale deeds executed and registered in their favour. Before the sale deeds were executed in favour of respective purchasers/applicants for mutation, the predecessor- in-office of the petitioner, namely, Birendra Kumar Rai (accused No.8) had issued ‘No Objection Certificate’ certifying that the lands in question were ‘Basauri’. On perusal of Registered Sale Deed, No Objection Certificate, 11 Khatiyan and Sale Certificate as well as the report of Halka Karamchari and No Objection from 16 Ana Raiyat, the petitioner in exercise of power under Section 14 of the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 passed the orders mutating the names of the applicants and accordingly correction-slips were issued. A.B.A. No. 3777 of 2015 Learned counsel for the petitioner-Umakant Jha submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner was not named in the F.I.R of the said vigilance case nor in the instant C.B.I case. The name of the petitioner was added during the course of investigation by the C.B.I. The petitioner is a bonafide registered power of attorney holder, who in good faith took the power of attorney from Sukri Raiyan by scrutinizing all the relevant documents including title of the land and Bhu Satyapan Report issued in the year 2007 by the Circle Office, Mohanpur. The petitioner is suffering from kidney problem and recently his kidney transplant took place in the Department of Nephrology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. A.B.A. No. 969 of 2016 Learned counsel for the petitioner-Sanjay Kumar Lal submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner had no knowledge with regard to the land in question and he had bonafidely executed the alleged sale deeds being the power of attorney holder of Taran Rai. The petitioner is a heart patient and he is undergoing treatment at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. A.B.A. No. 3856 of 2015 Learned counsel for the petitioner-Kanhaiya Jha submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner had become the power of attorney holder of Taran Rai in good faith. It is alleged that on the basis of the said power of attorney, the petitioner executed the sale deeds of non-transferable lands. 12 A.B.A. No. 3855 of 2015 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner- Rakesh Ranjan has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner had become the power of attorney holder of Taran Rai in good faith. It is alleged that on the basis of the said power of attorney, the petitioner executed the sale deeds of non-transferable lands. A.B.A. No. 856 of 2016 Learned counsel for the petitioner-Deo Narayan Parihast submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Deoghar had issued show cause vide Memo No. 204 dated 05.05.2010 asking that under what circumstances, the nature of land has been changed from Bandh, as the same is in violation of the provisions of Santhal Pragana Tenancy Act. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply with respect to the said show cause whereupon, the S.D.O, Deoghar by order dated 03.07.2010 after holding an enquiry to the facts submitted by the petitioner dropped the proceeding. The petitioner is aged about 97 years and is suffering from several ailments. A.B.A. No. 1067 of 2016 Learned counsel for the petitioner-Jamun Mirdha submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Though he was named in the complaint, but after investigation the C.B.I did not send him for trial. However, differing from the opinion of the C.B.I, learned Special Judge has taken cognizance against him for the offences under the alleged Sections. He is not concerned with the alleged sale of non-transferable lands. A.B.A. No. 555 of 2016 Learned counsel for the petitioner-Lalan Kumar Mehra submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It has been alleged that the petitioner was working as Circle Inspector in Mohanpur Circle, Deoghar during the period August, 2003 to February, 2009 and he dishonestly accepted the false report of Madhusudan Jha and 13 recommended for issuance of Bhu Satyapan Report/NOC in 13 instances. As per the record available, on the application of Maheshwari Devi in respect of issuance of NOC, the Circle Officer is not bound to accept the report of a Karamchari. The petitioner had no role to play in preparing the letters bearing Nos. 35ra and 36ra, both dated 31.02.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that during course of investigation, the petitioners fully co-operated with the CBI personnel and whenever they were directed, they appeared and co- operated in the investigation. They were never arrested. The investigation of the case has been completed, final form has been submitted, cognizance has already been taken and the trial will take some time. There is no allegation that the petitioners are trying to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. Hence, the petitioners deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Submission on behalf of the C.B.I A.B.A. No. 4303 of 2015 Learned S.C (C.B.I) opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner-Vishnu Prasad Rai and submitted that the petitioner was working as a public servant in the capacity of Halka Karamchari, Halka No. 02, Circle Office, Mohanpur, Deogahr during the period from August 2007 to 30.01.2008. He entered into criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons and dishonestly and fraudulently allowed unauthorized/illegal entries in Register-II of Baijnathpur Mauza regarding Jamabandi No. 42/5 and 42/6 with mention of issue of rent receipt No. 1007422 and 1007423, both dated 22.01.2008 in favour of accused Deb Narayan Parihast. During investigation, the C.B.I has collected sufficient evidence, both oral as well as documentary, against the petitioner. A.B.A. No. 4594 of 2015 Learned S.C (C.B.I) opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner-Kamleshwari Prasad Singh and submitted that the petitioner was 14 working as a public servant in the capacity of Head Assistant-cum-Record Keeper, District Record Room, Deoghar. He entered into criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons, dishonestly and fraudulently issued certified copies of fake/forged records of Mutation Case No. 8/54-55 of Circle Office, Deogahr showing mutation of plots under Baijnathpur Mauza as mentioned in fake sale certificate No. SC13/1937 in favour of accused Deb Narayan Parihast. He issued certified copy of Misc. Case No. 26/83-84 under his signature and stamp which was used by accused Smt. Maheshwari Devi for claiming ownership over land under Bandha Mauza, Mohanpur Circle, Deoghar, as mentioned in fake sale certificate No. SC37/1936. During investigation, the C.B.I has collected sufficient evidence, both oral as well as documentary, against the petitioner. A.B.A. No. 4501 of 2015 Learned S.C (C.B.I) opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner-Jitendra Singh and submitted that the petitioner was working as a public servant in the capacity of Nazir, Circle Office, Mohanpur, Deoghar in the year 2008. He was the custodian of rent receipt books. The Book of Rent Receipt bearing No. 38/07-09 from Sl. No. 1007401 to 1007450 was issued by the petitioner to Sri Suresh Chandra Mandal, the then Halka Karamchari, Mohanpur on 03.03.2008 who had returned the same after utilizing the same to the petitioner under acknowledgement/receipt to that effect. But the rent receipts bearing No. 1007422 and 1007423 were dishonestly/fraudulently issued and were mentioned in Index-II of Baijnathpur Mauza in respect of JB No. 42/5 and 42/6 in favour of accused Deb Narayan Parihast to show that the said two rent receipts were issued on 22.01.2008. During investigation, the C.B.I has collected sufficient evidence, both oral as well as documentary, against the petitioner. A.B.A. No. 4269 of 2015 Learned S.C (C.B.I) opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner-Kishan Deo Das and submitted that the petitioner was working 15 as a public servant in the capacity of Head Clerk, Circle Office, Mohanpur, Deoghar during the period from December 2006 to 20.01.2009. Memo Nos. 35/ra and 36/ra both dated 31.12.2007 signed by accused Birendra Kumar Rai and addressed to accused Madhusudan Jha for issue of rent receipt in favour of accused Deb Narayan Parihast were dishonestly/fraudulently prepared and issued by him knowingly well the fact that accused Madhusudan Jha had already retired from service in October, 2007. During investigation, the C.B.I has collected sufficient evidence, both oral as well as documentary, against the petitioner. A.B.A. No. 3873 of 2015 Learned S.C (C.B.I) opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner-Virender Bhardwaj and submitted that the petitioner is a private person. He in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons was engaged in sale of non-transferable Raiyati/Government land at Deoghar during the relevant period by using false and fake land records. He with the help of his associates Shri Kanhaiya Jha and Shri Rakesh Ranjan, at the instance of accused Dhrub Narayan Parihast and others, was engaged in sale of non-transferable land at Deoghar. He was one of the beneficiaries of the proceeds of fraudulent sale of non-transferable Raiyati/Government land. He has executed various sale deeds through the power of attorney holder/vendor in favour of different buyers. During investigation, the C.B.I has collected sufficient evidence, both oral as well as documentary, against the petitioner. A.B.A. No. 191 of 2016 Learned S.C (C.B.I) opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner-Maheshwari Devi and submitted that the petitioner is the wife of Shri Deb Narayan Parihast and the mother of Shri Dhrub Narayan Parihast. She is a private person. She with the help of her son Shri Dhrub Narayan Parihast and others was engaged in sale of non-transferable land at Deoghar. She was found engaged in preparation and usage of forged and 16 fake land records. She dishonestly and fraudulently got favourable recommendation and sold non-transferable lands for undue pecuniary gain. She executed sale deeds as vendor in favour of different buyers and received payment through her Bank account. During investigation, the C.B.I has collected sufficient evidence, both oral as well as documentary, against the petitioner. A.B.A. No. 4499 of 2015 Learned S.C (C.B.I) opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner-Dinesh Kumar Mishra and submitted that the petitioner was working as a public servant in the capacity of Halka Karamchari, Circle Office, Mohanpur, Deoghar during the period from 2003 to 2011. He entered into criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons and dishonestly and fraudulently furnished false/incorrect reports for transfer of non-transferable land in respect of issue of Bhu Satyapan Certificate/NOC No. 93 dated 24.07.2008 in favour of accused Maheshwari Devi. He had also issued rent receipts in favour of accused Maheshwri Devi. He also fraudulently/dishonestly furnished false/incorrect report for transfer of non- transferable land in respect of issue of Bhu Satyapan Certificate/NOC No. 51 dated 31.12.2007. During investigation, the C.B.I has collected sufficient evidence, both oral as well as documentary, against the petitioner. A.B.A. No. 3779 of 2015 Learned S.C (C.B.I) opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner-Madhusudan Jha and submitted that the petitioner was working as a public servant in the capacity of Halka Karamchari, Circle Office, Mohanpaur, Deoghar during the period April 2007 to October 2007 (till his retirement). He entered into criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons and dishonestly and fraudulently submitted false/incorrect reports for transfer of non-transferable land in respect of issue of Bhu Satyapan Certificate/NOC Nos. 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 39, 40, 41, 42 & 45, all dated 17 31.12.2007, which were endorsed by accused Lalan Kumar Mehra, the then Circle Inspector and issued under the signature of accused Birendra Kumar Rai, the then Circle Officer of Mohanpur Circle, Deoghar. During investigation, the C.B.I has collected sufficient evidence, both oral as well as documentary, against the petitioner. A.B.A. No. 2387 of 2015 Learned S.C (C.B.I) opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner-Birendra Kumar Rai and submitted that the petitioner was working as a public servant in the capacity of Circle Officer, Mohanpur Circle, District-Deoghar during the period from January 2006 to 31.07.2008 and thus he was duty bound to ensure true and correct updating and maintenance of land records as well as to issue Bhu Satyapan Report/No Objection Certificate for transfer of land in adherence to laid down provisions of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act/Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary) Act, 1949/Santhal Pargana Regulation etc. He entered into criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons and dishonestly and fraudulently issued order vide Memo Nos. 35/ra & 36/ra both dated 31.12.2007 directing thereby the co-accused Sri Madhusudan Jha for issue of rent receipts in favour of accused Dhrub Narayan Parihast after a gap of about 40 years. Sri Madhusudan Jha, accused, had already retired from service in October 2007, but under criminal conspiracy, he made false report resulting into issue of false Bhu Satyapan Certificates/NOCs under the signatures of accused Sri Birendra Kumar Rai. The petitioner had issued 13 number of false/bogus NOCs under his signatures (without any reference to the Khatiyan kept in his office) which was the basis of registration of transfer deeds related to non- transferable/Government land falling under different Mauza of Mohanpur Circle, Deoghar. During investigation, the C.B.I has collected sufficient evidence, both oral as well as documentary, against the petitioner. A.B.A. No. 3792 of 2015 18 Learned S.C (C.B.I) opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner-Sidharth Shankar Choudhary and submitted that the petitioner was working as a public servant in the capacity of Circle Officer, Deoghar and Mohanpur during July, 2007 to October, 2010 and thus he was duty bound, inter alia, to ensure genuine mutation of transferable land only in his circle in strict adherence to the laid down provisions of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act/Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary) Act, 1949/Santhal Pargana Regulation etc. He entered into criminal conspiracy with accused Shyam Kishore Choudhary, the then Halka Karamchari and other co- accused persons, dishonestly and fraudulently allowed mutation of non-transferable Raiyati/Government land in Bandha Mauza under Mohanpur Circle vide Mutation Case Nos. 36, 37, 38 & 39 of 2010-11 and 109 & 110 of 2010-11. Investigation established that the petitioner allowed mutation in respect of plot Nos. 425, 464, 465 (Govt. land) and Plot Nos. 461, 462, 463 (non-transferable Raiyati land) which is very much evident from the Khatiyan of Circle Office, Mohanpur. The said plots were sold by accused Sanjay Kumar Lal in association with co-accused Sri Dhrub Narayan Parihast through the power of attorney. During investigation, the C.B.I has collected sufficient evidence, both oral as well as documentary, against the petitioner. A.B.A. No. 3777 of 2015 Learned S.C (C.B.I) opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner-Umakant Jha and submitted that he is a private person. In criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons, he was engaged in sale of non-transferable Raiyati/Government land at Deogahr during the relevant period by using false and fake land records. He executed various sale deeds through power of attorney holder/vendor in favour of different buyers. During investigation, the C.B.I has collected sufficient evidence, both oral as well as documentary, against the petitioner. 19 A.B.A. No. 969 of 2016 Learned S.C (C.B.I) opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner-Sanjay Kumar Lal and submitted that he is a private person. In criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons, he was engaged in sale of non-transferable Raiyati/Government land at Deoghar during the relevant period by using false and fake land records. He executed various sale deeds through power of attorney holder/vendor in favour of different buyers. During investigation, the C.B.I has collected sufficient evidence, both oral as well as documentary, against the petitioner. A.B.A. No. 3856 of 2015 Learned S.C (C.B.I) opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner-Kanhaiya Jha and submitted that he is a private person. In criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons, he was engaged in sale of non-transferable Raiyati/Government land at Deoghar during the relevant period by using false and fake land records. He executed various sale deeds through power of attorney holder/vendor in favour of different buyers. During investigation, the C.B.I has collected sufficient evidence, both oral as well as documentary, against the petitioner. A.B.A. No. 3855 of 2015 Learned S.C (C.B.I) opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner-Rakesh Ranjan and submitted that he is a private person. In criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons, he was engaged in sale of non-transferable Raiyati/Government land at Deoghar during the relevant period by using false and fake land records. He executed various sale deeds through power of attorney holder/vendor in favour of different buyers. During investigation, the C.B.I has collected sufficient evidence, both oral as well as documentary, against the petitioner. A.B.A. No. 856 of 2016 Learned S.C (C.B.I) opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner-Deo Narayan Parihast and submitted that the petitioner is the 20 husband of Smt. Maheshwri Devi and father of Shri Dhrub Narayn Parihast. He is a private person. He was engaged in sale of non-transferable Raiyati/Government land at Deoghar during the relevant period by using false and fake land records for undue pecuniary gain in violation of laid down provisions of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act/Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary) Act, 1949/Santhal Pargana Regulation etc. He with the help of his son Shri Dhrub Narayan Parihast and others executed sale deeds as vendor and sold/transferred non-transferable Government land in fake sale certificate No. 13/1937. He claimed ownership over the plots mentioned in fake sale certificate No. 13/1937 falling under Baijnathpur Mauza, Mohanpur Circle, Deoghar in the capacity of auction purchaser and further shown having got mutation done in his name vide fake Mutation Case No. 8/54-55. The plots mentioned in fake sale certificate No. 13/1937 are non-transferable Raiyati/Government land. The petitioner’s handwritings over Bhu Satyapan Certificate/NOC have also been confirmed by GEQD. During investigation, the C.B.I has collected sufficient evidence, both oral as well as documentary, against the petitioner. A.B.A. No. 1067 of 2016 Learned S.C (C.B.I) fairly submitted that after investigation, the petitioner-Jamun Mirdha was not sent up for trial. However, learned Special Judge differing from the opinion of the C.B.I, has taken cognizance against him for the offences under the alleged Sections. A.B.A. No. 555 of 2016 Learned S.C (C.B.I) opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner-Lalan Kumar Mehra and submitted that the petitioner was working as a public servant in the capacity of Circle Inspector in Circle Office, Mohanpur, Deoghar. He entered into criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons and dishonestly/fraudulently accepted the false reports of Madhusudan Jha, accused, and further recommended for issue of Bhu Satyapan Report/NOC in 13 instances without any reference to the 21 Khatiyan kept in the Circle Office, Mohanpur, Deoghar. During investigation, the C.B.I has collected sufficient evidence, both oral as well as documentary, against the petitioner. Finding Having heard leaned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record, I find that the petitioners in A.B.A. No. 2387/2015 & A.B.A. No. 3792/2015 were working as Circle Officer at the relevant time. They dishonestly and fraudulently allowed mutation of non-transferable Raiyati/Government land, issued NOC/Bhu Satyapan Report/rent receipts for sale of non-transferable Raiyati/Government land in violation of the provisions of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act/Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary) Act, 1949/Santhal Pargana Regulation etc., which has been found true by the C.B.I in the investigation. Though the petitioner in A.B.A. No. 856/2016 is a private person, he was engaged in preparation and usage of forged and fake land records. He fraudulently got favourable recommendation and sold non-transferable Raiyati/Government land. So far as other petitioners are concerned, some of them were working as Karamchari, Record Keeper, Nazir, Head Clerk and Circle Inspector at the relevant time. Some of them are power of attorney holder. The petitioner in A.B.A. No. 191/2016 is a lady and private person. The C.B.I has not submitted final form against the petitioner in A.B.A. No. 1067/2016. Investigation against them is complete, final form has been submitted, cognizance has already been taken, they co-operated in the investigation, they were never arrested during investigation and the trial will take some time. Conclusion Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the above named fourteen petitioners in A.B.A. No. 4303 of 2015, A.B.A. No. 4594 of 2015, A.B.A. No. 4501 of 2015, A.B.A. No. 4269 of 2015, A.B.A. No. 3873 of 2015, A.B.A. No. 191 of 2016, A.B.A. No. 4499 of 2015, A.B.A. No. 22 3779 of 2015, A.B.A. No. 3777 of 2015, A.B.A. No. 969 of 2016, A.B.A. No. 3856 of 2015, A.B.A. No. 3855 of 2015, A.B.A. No. 1067 of 2016 & A.B.A. No. 555 of 2016 are directed to surrender before the concerned Court below within a period of five weeks. If they surrender before the Court below within the aforesaid period, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.25,000/- (twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, C.B.I, Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No. 16(A)/2012-D, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C and further that one bailer must be the public servant. They shall deposit their Passport, if any, before the Trial Court. During trial, they shall fully cooperate with the CBI and appear physically before the Trial Court as and when required. They shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses. If they want exemption from appearance, they shall inform the CBI in advance and after taking necessary permission from the Trial Court, they may be exempted from personal appearance. In view of the allegations against the petitioners in A.B.A. No. 2387/2015, A.B.A. No. 3792/2015 & A.B.A. No. 856/2016, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to them. Prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named three petitioners in A.B.A. No. 2387/2015, A.B.A. No. 3792/2015 & A.B.A. No. 856/2016 is, accordingly, rejected. They may surrender before the Court below and pray for regular bail. Satish/- (ANANT BIJAY SINGH, J)


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //