The Court rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail in a Vigilance case involving the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC, noting a prior rejection on merits and lacked of similar grounds to the co-accused who was granted bail.
The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1215 of 2019
Gopal Das … Petitioner Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance Opposite Party ------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Saboo, Advocate For the Vigilance : Mr. T.N. Verma, Spl. P.P. ------
Order No.08 Dated- 16.09.2019
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No.20 of 2009 (Special Case No. 25 of 2009) registered under sections 420/406/408/409/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 12/13(2)/13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. P.P. for the State.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits earlier vide order dated 03.09.2010, the anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected. It is next submitted that the only fresh ground is that the co-accused- Sardar Gurbir Singh who is a builder has been given the privilege of anticipatory bail and though investigation of the case is going on since long, the petitioner has not yet been arrested nor any fresh material has come against him. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the Vigilance on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the allegation against co-accused- Sardar Gurbir Singh stand in a different footing than the petitioner as on the relevant time, the petitioner was the Vice Chairman of R.R.D.A. whereas the co-accused- Sardar Gurbir Singh was not holding any post in R.R.D.A. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the fact that prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner has earlier been rejected on merit and the allegation of co-accused- Sardar Gurbir Singh do not stand in the same footing as the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail for the same reasons as mentioned in order dated 03.09.2010 by which the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected earlier. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Gunjan-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner considering his previous rejection and that co-accused conditions differ.
Gopal Das
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
