Amit Kumar Agarwal Vs Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 12344 of 2023

Amit Kumar Agarwal, S/o Sri Vijay Kumar Agarwal, R/o HB-165, Salt Lake, Sector-3, P.O.- Vidhan Nagar, P.S.Vidhan Nagar South, District-24 Parganas North, DistrictKolkata (West Bengal) … … Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation

¶5

… … Opposite Party

¶6

---------

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶8

--------- For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Nagamuthhu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sooraj Prakash, Adv. Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Adv. Ms. Amrita Sinha, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. For the C.B.I. : Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Adv, ASGI Ms. Chandana Kumari, A.C. to ASGI ---------

¶9

C.A.V. on 03/05/2024 Pronounced on 14/08/2024

¶10

Heard Mr. S. Nagamuthhu, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the Central Bureau of Investigation.

¶11

2. The petitioner is an accused in connection with RC-02A/2023-D, corresponding to RC No. 2182023A0002/ CBI/ AC-III/ New Delhi, registered for the offences u/s 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

3. This Court in its order dated 30.11.2022 passed in W.P.(Cr.) No. 517 of 2022 filed by the petitioner had directed the CBI to conduct a Preliminary Enquiry into the conduct of the petitioner in scandalizing the judiciary, ED officials and other Government officials. It has been alleged in the Enquiry Report that on 10.10.2021, W.P.(PIL) No. 4290 of 2021 was filed by Sri Shiv Shankar Sharma through advocate

¶13

Page 1 of 5 B.A. No. 12344 of 2023

¶14

Rajeev Kumar before this Court wherein it has surfaced that the petitioner amongst others were involved in the laundering of ill-gotten money from Sri Hemant Soren, the Chief Minister, Jharkhand and others through various shell companies. It has been alleged that another Public Interest Litigation being W.P.(PIL) No. 1727/2022 was filed against Sri Hemant Soren and Smt. Pooja Singhal relating to Mining Lease acquired by Sri Hemant Soren, Chief Minister of Jharkhand-cum-Minister of Mines and Industries and Transport Department and he had obtained environmental clearance for the new lease. The enquiry revealed that in the month of March, 2022 an attempt was made by the petitioner through the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to influence Sri Rajeev Kumar in connection with the said Public Interest Litigation. It has also been alleged that in the enquiry it came to light that based on the complaint of the petitioner, the Hare Street Police Station, Kolkata had registered FIR No. 222/2022 against Sri Rajeev Kumar and Sri Shiv Shankar Sharma with respect to the aforesaid allegations u/s 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of the IPC read with Section 384 of the IPC. It has also come in course of enquiry that the petitioner had called the counsel Sri Rajiv Kumar from Ranchi to Kolkata, firstly on 13.07.2022 and, thereafter on 31.07.2022 through one of his known persons Sri Sonu Agarwal and induced him to take financial benefits for getting the said Public Interest Litigation dismissed. The conversation between the petitioner and Sri Rajeev Kumar was recorded by the petitioner on both occasions. The enquiry also revealed that the petitioner had induced the counsel of Sri Shiv Shankar Sharma to use his good contact with Judges and get the Public Interest Litigation dismissed and offered them money and also enquired about the amount of money required for the same. The enquiry further revealed that when the petitioner called the counsel to

¶15

Page 2 of 5 B.A. No. 12344 of 2023

¶16

Kolkata on 31.07.2022, he had handed over Rs. 50,00,000/and got him trapped by the Kolkata Police. The enquiry also revealed that FIR No. 222/2022 was registered by Hare Street Police Station on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner even without mentioning the name of any public servant or unknown public servants before invoking the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The information provided to the Hare Street Police Station was false and bribe was given to the counsel by alluring him with an intention to interfere in the judicial process.

¶17

Based on the aforesaid allegations CBI had registered RC No. 2182023A0002/CBI/AC-III/New Delhi dated 18.01.2023 against the petitioner and other unknown persons including unknown officials of the Kolkata Police.

¶18

4. It has been submitted by Mr. S. Nagamuthhu, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that on conclusion of investigation charge-sheet has already been submitted against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 07.12.2023. It has been submitted that based on this case ECIR Case No. 5/2022 was also instituted by the Enforcement Directorate u/s 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in which, the petitioner has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The allegations do not make out a prima facie case against the petitioner. It has also submitted that Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. notice was not issued to the petitioner. There is no chance of the trial being concluded in the near future and considering the incarceration suffered by the petitioner he deserves to be released on bail.

¶19

5. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation has primarily referred to the charge-sheet while submitting that the specific role of the petitioner has been demarcated in the charge-sheet. It has been submitted that the

¶20

Page 3 of 5 B.A. No. 12344 of 2023

¶21

case was instituted at the behest of the accused Sri Rajeev Kumar. It has been submitted that Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. will not be applicable in the case of the petitioner since the petitioner was in custody in another case. 6. The petitioner has been arrayed in the chargesheet as A-1 while Rajeev Kumar has been arrayed as A-2. The role of the petitioner as depicted in the charge-sheet has been enumerated at paragraph 16.3.1 which reads as follows:

¶22

“16.3.1 Sh. Amit Kumar Agarwal (A-1), against whom the allegations were made in the PIL 4290/2021 pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand, had himself approached Rajeev Kumar. He called Rajeev Kumar at Kolkata by alluring him with intention to get the PIL settled in his favour from Hon’ble Judges/Court. The transcription of recorded conversation of the meeting held on 13.07.2022 revealed that it is the accused Amit Kumar Agarwal who is instigating accused Rajeev Kumar to save him from the PIL. Despite, no mention of any Government officials, Court Officers and Judges or Income Tax Agency, Sh. Amit Kumar Agarwal alleged in his complaint that Sh. Rajeev Kumar had threatened him in their name and had asked for bribe for onwards transmission to other Govt. Officials. Investigation has revealed that it was accused Sh. Amit Kumar Agarwal who had initiated the offer for a meeting with Sh. Rajeev Kumar and asked Sh. Rajeev Kumar on 13.07.2022 as to what is his expectation because he wants to ultimately resolve the matter of PIL, at which Sh. Rajeev Kumar demanded Rs. 10 Crores. However, Amit Kumar Agarwal informed Kolkata Police on 14.07.2022 but lodged written complaint on 31.07.2022 alleging demand of bribe and extortion in the name of Government Officials, Court Officers and Judges. On being invited by Amit Kumar Agarwal, Sh. Rajeev Kumar again came to Kolkata on 31.07.2022 and finally got trapped by Kolkata Police while demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 50 lacs from Sh. Amit Kumar Agarwal. The conversation dated 13.07.2022 recorded by Sh. Amit Kumar Agarwal in his mobile phone was leaked in the media i.e. Lagatar News, on the very next day i.e. 01.08.2022. It is pertinent to mention that the said mobile was in the possession of Sh. Amit Kumar Agarwal till 03.08.2022. The transcript of the operative part of the said recorded conversation (as Page 4 of 5 B.A. No. 12344 of 2023

¶23

viral/broadcasted in the Lagatar news) and copy of FIR No. 222/2022 registered by PS Hare Street, Kolkata were filed by State of Jharkhand vide an interim application no. 112940/2022 on 11.08.2022 in the matter of SLPs no. 10622-10623 of 2022 (SLP (C) NOS. 11364-11365 OF 2022) filed by the State of Jharkhand challenging the order dated 03.06.2022 of Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 07.11.2022 in SLP (C) Nos. 10622-23 of 2022 has allowed the appeals of State of Jharkhand and set aside the order dated 03.06.2022 passed by the Jharkhand High Court in W.P. No. (PIL) 4290 of 2021. ”

¶24

7. As noted above, charge-sheet has already been submitted by the CBI against the petitioner and others. The coaccused Sri Rajeev Kumar (A-2) has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in A.B.A. No. 3156 of 2024. Even the petitioner has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case instituted u/s 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. There is also no chance of the trial being concluded in the near future.

¶25

8. On consideration of the aforesaid facts the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in connection with RC02A/2023-D, corresponding to RC No. 2182023A0002/ CBI/ AC-III/ New Delhi.

¶26

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶27

A. Sanga/NAFR

¶28

Page 5 of 5 B.A. No. 12344 of 2023

Amit Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanu Ram Bodra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sheikh Asafaque Alias Sk Ashfaque Alias Rajjan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arun Kumar Tiwary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shrichandra Mukhiya Alias Shri Chandra Mukhiya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranjeet Mondal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Biranchee Prasad Choudhary Alias Birinchi Chaudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand