Allowed

Mainak Dutta v. the State of Jharkhand through CBI

Jharkhand HC28 Sept 2018B.A./4120/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted bail to the petitioner, Mainak Dutta, accused in a disproportionate assets case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The order imposes standard bail conditions, including furnishing bonds, supplying local sureties, appearing before the trial court, and cooperating with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail by furnishing bonds of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties on specified conditions including personal appearance and cooperation with the trial court.

Mainak Dutta Vs the State of Jharkhand through CBI — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4120 of 2018

¶2

Mainak Dutta ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through CBI ….. Opp. Party --------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Advocate. For the State (CBI) : J.C. to ASGI. --------- 05/Dated: 28/09/2018

¶3

Petitioner has been made accused, in connection with R.C. Case No. 11(A)/2013-D, registered under Sections 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, pending in the court of ADJ-XI, Dhanbad.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the CBI.

¶5

The case of prosecution in short is that an information has been received from reliable source that Sri Mainak Dutta, the then Chief General Manager, Piparwar Area, Central Coalfields Limited, Chatra, Jharkhand, during the check period from January, 2007 to February, 2012, acquired huge assets which are disproportionate to his know source of income to the tune of Rs. 85,02,598/- only.

¶6

It is alleged that the petitioner was having assets worth Rs. 17,10,450/- at the beginning of check period i.e. January, 2007 in the form of plot of lands, vehicle, shares, savings etc. and has acquired huge assets in the forms of flat, vehicle, shares, bank balance, gold & jewelry, household articles etc. at Chatra, Kolkata and other places to the tune of Rs. 1,79,38,056/- at the end of check period. He has acquired asset to the tune of Rs. 1,62,27,606/- during the check period between January, 2007 to February, 2012. He has received total income of Rs. 1,33,99,874/- only from his known source of income during the aforesaid check period and the expenditure during the said check period is estimated as Rs. 56,74,866/- and the petitioner was found in possession of the assets disproportionate to the tune of Rs. 85,02,598/- to his known source of income. On the basis of these allegations, the instant case has been instituted.

¶7

-2-

¶8

It appears that earlier petitioner had moved in A.B.A. No. 1931 of 2017, which was dismissed by this Court on 05.09.2017. Thereafter, Special Leave to Appeal bearing No. 8601/2017 was moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has been dismissed as withdrawn on 21.11.2017. Thereafter, petitioner surrendered before the Special Judge and prayed for bail, but his prayer was rejected and was remanded in this case and since then, he is in jail custody.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the CBI after investigation has submitted final form and cognizance has been taken in the case and trial will take some time and so, considering the period of detention, the petitioner may be released on bail, so that he may be able to pursue his case effectively. It is further submitted that petitioner is ready to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this Court.

¶10

Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is serious in nature.

¶11

Be that as it may, the petitioner, Mainak Dutta, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned ADJ-XI, Dhanbad, in connection with R.C. Case No. 11(A)/2013-D on the following conditions:

¶12

(i) One of the bailers shall be a local resident of Dhanbad district and a solvent person.

¶13

(ii) Petitioner will appear physically on each and every date before the court below till framing of charges and he will not take any adjournment and will also fully cooperate during the trial.

¶14

(iii) If the petitioner wants exemption from his personal appearance, he will inform the learned counsel for the CBI in advance and after taking necessary permission from trial court / Special Judge, he may be exempted from personal appearance.

¶15

(iv) The petitioner will deposit his passport, if any, before the trial court / Special Court on the date of his furnishing bail bonds.

¶16

-3-

¶17

(v) The trial court is directed to take all appropriate steps for framing of charges against the petitioner at the earliest. (vi) If the petitioner fails to cooperate with the trial court till the stage of framing charges against him, the trial court will submit a report to this Court accordingly with specific reasons and matter will be considered by this Court on the point of cancellation of bail of the petitioner after receipt of the report of the trial court.

¶18

Let a copy of order be communicated to the court below through 'FAX' and a copy of this order be handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the CBI.

¶19

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)

¶20

Sunil/

Mainak Dutta v. the State of Jharkhand through CBI

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mainak Dutta v. the State of Jharkhand through CBI

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

Md Mobin Ahmad Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sujit Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Elizabeth Batchman And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jaswant Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bilal Ahmad Alias MD Bilal Alias Samir Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand