Allowed

Megnath Prasad Alias Megh Nath Prasad Alias Megh Nath Saha v. the State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation

Jharkhand HC3 Aug 2018A.B.A./1270/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand disposed of five connected anticipatory bail petitions filed by accused in a FIR involving cheating and forgery under the IPC and MMDR Act. Upholding cooperation with investigation and completion of inquiry, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions including cost deposit and surrender.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted anticipatory bail after depositing costs and surrendering in the trial court by 28.08.2018 on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 each with sureties.

Megnath Prasad Alias Megh Nath Prasad Alias Megh Nath Saha Vs… — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B. A. No. 1270 of 2018 Meghnath Prasad @ Megh Nath Prasad @ Megh Nath Saha …… Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation …… Opposite Party With A.B. A. No. 2162 of 2018 Rakesh Kumar Singhania …… Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation …… Opposite Party With A.B. A. No. 2178 of 2018 1. Shakti Kumar Rajak 2. Binod Ram …… Petitioners Versus State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation …… Opposite Party With A.B. A. No. 7363 of 2017 Jayant Kumar Birua …… Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation …… Opposite Party With A.B. A. No. 3264 of 2018 Rajib Pal …… Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation …… Opposite Party

¶3

---------

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

¶5

For the Petitioners: Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate (in A.B.A. Nos. 1270/18, 2162/18/, 2178/18, 3264/18) Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate (in A.B.A. No. 7363 of 2017) For the C.B.I : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, A.S.G.I.

¶6

09/ Dated: 03/08/2018

¶7

Since all the five anticipatory bail applications arise out of one and the same case, hence they are taken up together and disposed of by common order.

¶8

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with R.C. Case No. 7(S)/2010-AHD-R for the offence under section 120B read with sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶9

The case of prospection, in short, is that R.C. Case No. 7(S)/2010-AHD-R has

¶10

¶11

been registered consequent upon issuance of Notification No. 6/CBI-706/2010-3230 dated 09.08.2010 and 228/14/2010-AVD-II dated 13.09.2010 by the State Govt of Jharkhand the Govt. of India under section 6 & 5 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 respectively, Gua (Barajamda), Sadar Chaibasa P.S. Case No. 0028 of 2010 dated 06.05.2010 under sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation ) Act, 1957 against M/s Tirupati Balajee Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, M/s Tarni Metal, M/s Sara International Pvt. Ltd and suspects namely, M/s Devansh Export and Epical Exim Pvt. Ltd, registered. The case has arisen on the basis of a written complaint dated 06.05.2010 of Ajit Shankar, the then Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Chaibasa made to P.S. Gua barajamda, Distt. West Singhbhum, Jharkhand to the effect that the aforesaid firms are indulged in illegal trade of iron ore by way of forgery in the transport challan Form-D issued by the District Mining Office, Chaibasa.

¶12

Investigation reveals that on 26.07.2007, the office of DMO , Chaibasa issued 100 books of transit permits to the firm M/s P.K, Jain, Thakurani Iron Ore however, out of the aforesaid transport permits, 95, TPs provided by Railway Station, Noamundi were found to be misused through forgery I the weights of Iron ore shown to be transported.

¶13

As per the MMDR Act, 1957 and JMDR, 2007 the transports permits are issued in quadruplicate by the office of DMO, Chaibasa, First copy of lease holder/dealer, second copy is submitted with return at District Mining Office. On the basis of which DMO calculates the royalties charged from Mine/Lease holder (MLH) third copy for check gate/weigh bridge and the fourth copy is for transporter and total 95 were obtains from the station manager, Noamundi, Railway Station by the I,O. These 95 Form D transport challans were issued to M/s Padam Kumar Jain Thakurani Mines on 26.07.2007 by the District Mining Office and said firm filed return in October, 2007 in said Form D Transport Challan “Transporter Copy”

¶14

¶15

mentioned that consignment was sold to M/s Rajat Minerals by Padam Kumar Jain Thakurani Mines.

¶16

Further, during investigation, it was found that in all the aforesaid 95 Form D Transport challans the weight of Iron Ore mentioned in Transporter’s copy has been forged/altered in higher side. The weight as shown in the transporter’s copy are much more higher than the actual weight mentioned in mine owner’s copy/District Mining office copy/check gate copy by hatching the conspiracy among the proprietor for the firm M/s Tirupati Balaji Enterprises ie. Sh. Rakesh Kumr Singhania (petitioner in A.B.A. No.2162 of 20180 and its accused employees namely, Rajib Pal and Lallu.On the basis of these and another allegations the instant case has been lodged.

¶17

It appears that after completion of investigation, C.B.I has submitted final form.

¶18

A.B.A. No.2162 of 2018

¶19

Investigation reveals that Rakesh Kumar Singhania, proprietor of M/s Tirupati Balaji Enterprises (petitioner) asked his employees Sandeep Bhagat that Transport Challan form D books are available in the market and he should arrange then upon instruction of Rakesh Kuamr Singhania, Sandeep Bhagat contacted to persons and Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta @ Pinku provided two books of Transport Chalans form D and Vikram Singh @ Pinktu provided one books each books containing 100 challans. There is chain of person involving between in transmitting the said challans to M/s Tirupati Balaji Enterprises from the office of Rungta Mines Ltd.

¶20

A.B.A. No. 1270 of 2018

¶21

Investigation reveals that the aforesaid challans illegally and dishonestly provided by Ganeshwar Singh, Clerk in Rungta Mines Ltd. Jayant Kumar Birua (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 7363 of 2017) , Ex. Emply of Rungta Mines,Ltd to the unauthorized persons which was ultimately reached to Rakesh Kumar Singhania Proprietor of M/s Tirupati Balaji Enterprises through Ganeshwar Singh, Jayant

¶22

¶23

Kumar Birua (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 7363 of 2017) and other chain of person involved in between Ganeshwar Singh, Jayant Kuamr Birua to Rakesh Kumar Singhania and after receiving said Transport Challan form D books. Sh. Rajib Pal (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 3264 of 2018) and Binod Ram (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 2178 of 2018) paid Rs. 1,20,000/- for each book to supplier Sunil Kumar Gupta and Virkam Singh in the presence of Sunil Kumar Mahto and Sandeep Bhagat and on the direction of Rakesh Kumar Singhania, in this regard entry was made I the cash book maintained in the office of M/s Tirupati Balaji Enterprises.

¶24

A.B.A. No. 3264 of 2018

¶25

Investigation reveals that being the employee hatching conspiracy have committed the offence and committed substantial wrongful to the Government. Sh. Rajib Pal has forged the figure relating to weight of Iron ore in higher side against the figurer shown in each transport permit as issued by DMO, Chaibasa. He committed this forgery for wrongful gain to himself and his firm and corresponding loss to the government.

¶26

Learned counsels for the petitioners in all the anticipatory bail applications have submitted that C.B.I after investigation submitted chargesheet, accordingly cognizance has been taken by the Special Judge. Further, it has been submitted that during the entire investigation petitioners co-operated with the investigation and now investigation is complete there is no requirement of petitioners’ custodial interrogation. Further, it has been submitted that co-accused of this case namely, Ganeshwar Singh has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in A.B.A. No. 361 of 2016 dated 18.11.2016 and Mahavir Prasad Rungta by order dated 13.07.2017 in A.B.A. No. 3103 of 2017 and Dharmendra Kumar by order dated 03.08.2017 in A.B.A. No. 2259 of 2017. So, considering the aforesaid facts, the petitioners deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶27

On the other hand learned counsel for the C.B.I opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and filed counter-affidavit.

¶28

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records and considering the fact that the investigation is complete, petitioners have co-operated in investigation, they have appeared before the C.B.I as and when required and they have never been arrested by the C.B.I, I am inclined to admit the petitioners on anticipatory bail with cost on the following grounds:

¶30

(i) The petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singhania (A.B.A. No. 2162 of 2018) is directed to deposit cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-, petitioner- Meghnath Prasad @ Megh Nath Prasad @ Megh Nath Saha (A.B.A No. 1270/18), petitioners, Shakti Kumar Rajak and Binod Ram (A.B.A. No. 2178/18), petitioner Jayant Kumar Birua (A.B.A. No. 7363/17) and petitioner- Rajib Pal (A.B.A. No. 3264/18 are directed to deposit cost of Rs. 15,000/- in the account of Juvenile Justice Fund bearing A/C No. 37344984625, State Bank of India, Hatia Branch latest by 20.08.2018 and produce the receipt of deposition of the a foresaid amount before the trial court on the date of their surrender before the trial court.

¶31

(ii) Petitioners will fully cooperate with the trial and also appear physically on each and every date of trial before the trial court.

¶32

(iv) If the petitioners want exemption from appearance, they will inform the learned counsel for the C.B.I in advance and after taking necessary permission from Trial Court/Special Judge, they may be exempted from personal appearance.

¶33

(v) The petitioners will not try to influence the prosecution witnesses during

¶34

trial.

¶35

(vi) The petitioners will deposit their passport (if any) before the Trial courtSpecial court on the date of their surrender.

¶36

Accordingly, the above named petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below latest by 28.08.2018 and in the event of their arrest or surrender the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioners on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand)each, with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned S.D.J.M-cum-Special

¶37

¶38

Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I, Ranchi in connection with R.C. Case No. 7(S)/2010AHD-R, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C and also subject to further condition that one of the bailors must be local resident of Ranchi district solvent person.

¶39

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court through FAX and a copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the C.B.I .

¶40

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, (JHALSA), Ranchi to place the same before the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice.

¶41

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)

¶42

Satyar thi/-

Megnath Prasad Alias Megh Nath Prasad Alias Megh Nath Saha v. the State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Megnath Prasad Alias Megh Nath Prasad Alias Megh Nath Saha v. the State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheo Kumar Ram Vs the State of Jharkhnad

Robin Poul Alias Robin Paul Alias Robin Pal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bholeshwar Mahto Alias Bhuleshwar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikash Saw Alias Bikki Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raju Sulanki Vs the State of Jharkhand

Botish Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand