This judgment rejects a bail application filed by a District Land Acquisition Officer accused of disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court denied relief primarily because the petitioner failed to appear before the investigating officer for a recorded statement.
Prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B. A. No. 5201 of 2017 Shardanand Deo …… Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand through A.C.B Vigilance …… Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the A.C.B : Mr. T.N. Verma, Spl. P.P
C.A.V on : 08/08/2018 Pronounced on:14/08/2018
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with A.C.B. Hazaribagh P.S. Case No. 21 of 2017, for the offence under sections 13(2) read with section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The case of prospection, in short, is that the instant case has been lodged on the basis of written report of informant-Indubhushan Ojha, Inspector of Police, Anti-corruption Bureau, Hazaribag addressed to the Dy. S.P-cum-Officer-incharge, Anti-Corruption Police Station, Hazaribag stating therein that one Kushma Devi lodged complaints to the Superintendent of Police, A.C,B, Hazaribag alleging therein that her lands has been acquired for construction of Koderma-Ranchi Rail Track, for which award granted by Government and while payment of awarded money by cheque, the Land Acquisition Officer (petitioner), instructed the allegationist to contact with Nazir, Navlesh Kumar, who demanded 10% of awarded amount as bribe. It is further alleged by the allegationist that coaccused by providing account opening from, withdrawal forms etc asked the allegationist that one Bank account is required to be opened at Bank of India, Koderma, Branch and obtained their signatures on blank forms including withdrawal forms and in such manner co-accused withdrew the money in connivance with bank staffs from the allegationist –Kushma Devi, Bank accounts from 10 to 25% thereafter finding the allegation to be true, Ranchi ACB P.S. Case
2
No. 71 of 2015 under sections 406, 420, 120B, of the Indian Penal Code and under section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was registered against petitioner. During investigation it was found that petitioner-Shardanand Deo, the then District Land Acquisition Officer, Koderma was posted from 01.03.2014 to 31.01.2016 and has acquired the various assets and properties disproportionate to his known source of income during his tenure from 01.03.2014 to 31.01.2016 as a District Land Acquisition Officer (D.L.A.O), Koderma. During the financial year 2014-15, the petitioner has deposited Rs. 54,02,287.00 in the Axis Bank, Koderma Branch accounts in the name of his wife Smt. Sudha Dev, so called wife Smt Sumitra Devi, Shri Mahendra Kumar (LIC Agent) and also for himself. It is further alleged that during the financial year, 2014-15, the petitioner has purchased 15 decimals land in the name of his family members valued Rs. 20,76,600.00, description is given in the written report. It is further alleged that the petitioner has acquired another land in the name of his daughter Smt. Smita Deo valued Rs. 1,30,000.00 description is given in the written report. The petitioner has also invested in LIC as premium amount for himself Rs, 45,526.00 half yearly, Rs, 13,632/- in the name of his wife Smt. Sudha Dev and Rs, 25,658.00 and Rs. 25,658.00 for other family members. It is further alleged that the petitioner has having three storied building at Chas, Bokaro, cost of about Rs, 75,000,00/- (excluding the landed property) and total known income was found Rs. 1,64,78,887/-. It is further alleged that total income from the salary of the petitioner from 01.03.2014 to 31.03.2016 is Rs. 16,47,166/- but total expenditure is Rs. 90.27,290/- which shows that petitioner has acquired the various assets and properties disproportionate to his known source of income during his tenure from 01.03.2014 to 31.01.2016 which is check period. On the basis of these and another allegation, the instant case has been lodged.
3
Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing the bail application of the petitioner has submitted :
“5. That the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offene as alleged or at all and he has been falsely implicated in the present case only with a view to harass and humiliate the petitioner and his entire family members.
4
opposite ;party have shown the said amount of Rs, 10,00,000.00 as being the amount of the petitioner.
So, considering the aforesaid facts, the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Spl. P.P for the Vigilance Department while opposing the prayer
5
for anticipatory bail has submitted:
“7. That with regards to the stamen made in paragraph no. 4 under reply, is related to the prosecution case. The prosecution case in brief is that an F.I.R was instituted by the informant. Mr. Indu Bhushan Ojha, Inspector of Anti-corruption Buraearu, Hazaribag alleging therein that one Kushuma Devi by submitting her complaint to the Superintendent of Police, ACB, Hazaribag that her lands acquired for construction of ‘Koderma-Ranchi Rail Track’ for which compensation/award money granted by the government and while payment of compensation/award money by cheque. The land acquisition officer, (the petitioner) Kioderma instructed the complainant to contact with the Nazir namely Nawlesh Kuamr (co-accused of earlier A.C.B. P.S. Case No. 71 of 2015) who demanded 10% to 25% of the compensation/awarded amount as bribe commission. It is further alleged that the co-accused by providing accounts opening form, withdrawal etc asked the complainant that one Bank account is required to be open at Bank of India, Koderma Branch and obtained their signature on blank forms including withdrawal forms and in such manner coaccused withdraw the money in connivance with the bank staffs from the bank account of Kusuma Devi and other persons. The accused withdrew money 10% to 25% as bribe/commission from the Bank account of the complainant and other persons. After finding the allegation to be true which Ranchi A.C.B. P.S. Case No.71 of 2015 under section 406, 420, 120B of I.P.C and under section 1(d) r/w(13(2) of the Prevention of corruption Act , 1988 was registered against the accused petitioner and other persons. In the course of the investigation of said case it was found that the accused petitioner (Shandanand Deo) has acquired a huge movable and immovable assets in his name and in the name of his family members and the same is disproportionate to his known source of income. In the course of investigation, it was found that the accused petitioner has acquired
6
more assets and properties during his tenure from 01.03.2014 to 31.01.2016 as District Land Acquisition Officer, (DLAO) Koderma, the investigating officer has taken the same period 01.03.2014 to 31.01.2016 as a check period to calculate the disproportionate income of the accused petitioner. In the course of the investigation of Ranchi ACB P.S. Case No. 71 of 2015, it was found that the total income of the accused petitioner was Rs, 90,27,920/0 whereas his known source of income was only Rs, 16,47,166/- and therefore the accused petitioner has total Rs, 73,80,754/- is assess as disproportionate to his known source of income which is equivalent to 448% of his income. After finding the huge disproportionate to his known source of income during investigation of Ranchi ACB P.S. Case No. 71 of 2015, the IO of the case has submitted a written report to the S.P. ACBV, Hazaribagh for institution of DA case against the accused petitioner Shardanand Deo, thereafter present case ACB Hazaribagh, 21/2017 dated 03.0-5.2017 under section 13(2) r/w 13(1) € of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was instituted against the accused petitioner Shardanand Deo. In the c course of the investigation, I.O has revealed huge moveable and immovable assets in his name and in the name of other family members , I.O has found five deeds in Koderma district in which four deeds in the name of the Khusboo Kumari (petitioner niece) and Vinod Yadav and one deed in the name of Smita Deo (petitioner daughter) amounts Rs, 1553,816/- and I.O has found five saving bank accounts in the name of Shardanand Deo (petitioner, Sudha Deo (wife of the petitioner) and Sumitra Devi (so called wife of the petitioner), Mahendra Kumar LIC agent in which more than Rs, 68,01,026/0 was in balance during the check period, during investigation it was detected that the accused petitioner was deposited his illegal income in the name of his associate Mahendra Kumar, LIC agent, Koderma. Five LIC policies documents related to c ash investment were also found during the investigation in which Rs, 6,09,690/- was invested in these
7
policies. The accused petitioner has having three storied building at Chas, Bokaro and a Sharm inside the Dangra Pahar, Koderma after technical valuation the valuation of these construction may enhance, however details facts of the case have been explained in the case diary, that the investigation of the case is going on.”
Learned Spl. P.P has further stated that the petitioner is also accused in A.C.B. P.S. Case No. 71 of 2015 registered under sections 420, 120B of the I.P.C and under section 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Investigation is still going on, petitioner has acquired assets disproportionate to his income. So, considering the above facts, the petitioner does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.
It appears that under order dated 13.06.2018, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to supply the cell number of the petitioner to the learned Spl. P.P and learned Spl. P.P was directed to supply the cell number of the petitioner to the I.O and I.O was directed to recorded the statement of the petitioner by giving 72 hours notice to the petitioner fixing date, time and place. Thereafter this case was listed for today i.e 08.08.2018.
On 08.08.2018, learned Spl. P.P for the A.C.B. has stated that despite issuance of notice, petitioner has not appeared before the I.O therefore his statement has not been recorded by the I.O.
Taking all these facts and circumstances of the case also considering the grounds taken by the learned Spl. P.P in the counter-affidavit and also the fact that petitioner is not co-operating in investigation, the allegation levelled against the petitioner is very serious, investigation is still going, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Satyarthi/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a public servant accused in a disproportionate assets/corruption case who refused to cooperate with the investigation.
Whether properties held in the names of the petitioner's family members can be used to establish disproportionate assets against him.
SHARDANAND DEO
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH A.C.B VIGILANCE
ANANT BIJAY SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court