Subimal Mukhopadhyay v. the State of Jharkhand through Anti Corruption Bureau

Jharkhand HC21 Sept 2021A.B.A./1702/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail in a corruption case involving misappropriation of public funds. The judge held that the serious nature of allegations and the need for custodial interrogation during investigation made it an unfit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

Subimal Mukhopadhyay Vs the State of Jharkhand through Anti… — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1702 of 2021

¶2

------

¶3

Subimal Mukhopadhyay .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through Anti Corruption Bureau .... .... .... Opposite Party

¶4

------

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, G.A.-V

¶7

Order No.03 Dated- 21.09.2021

¶8

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶9

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No.49 of 2010 corresponding to Special Case No.66 of 2010 registered under Sections 420, 120 (B), 467, 468, 471, 109, 409, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, in criminal conspiracy with the coaccused persons in alter violation of the rules, has committed misappropriation and embezzlement of use amount of public fund running into several crores of rupees in connection of organising the 34^th National game at Ranchi in connivance with the co-accused persons and the specific allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was the member of the Tender Committee and for catering service M/s. Catering Care, Noida submitted the lowest one (L-1 tender) but the work order was not given to M/s. Catering Care rather the same was given to M/s. Gazal Caterers Faridabad at a higher rate causing loss of revenue of Rs.2,80,91,000/- to the State Exchequer and corresponding gain to the petitioner and the co-accused persons and the petitioner was directly responsible for the same. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that in the Catering Committee, the petitioner was one of the members and the committee was only the recommending authority. It is further submitted that the petitioner being the member of the Tender Committee has scrutinized the tender documents in terms of the policy decided by the higher authority. It is next submitted that there is no specific allegation

¶11

against the petitioner of having received any particular amount from the coaccused persons. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Learned G.A-V appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is involved in misappropriation of huge amount of several crores and investigation against him is going on in this case. It is then submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the conspiracy and also to recover the embezzled amount. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the privileges of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.

¶14

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶15

Animesh/

Subimal Mukhopadhyay v. the State of Jharkhand through Anti Corruption Bureau

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subimal Mukhopadhyay v. the State of Jharkhand through Anti Corruption Bureau

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Man Mohan Varma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nupur Chhawi Alias Nupur Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mahesh Pradhan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mahboob Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dineshwar Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand

Fulendra Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand