Zahur Alam Alias MD Zahur Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

ABA No. 1626 of 2024 ----Zahur Alam @ Md. Zahur Alam … Petitioner(s). Versus State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s).

¶3

CORAM : SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

¶4

¶5

For the Petitioner(s) : M/s. Indrajit Sinha, Rahul Dev, Sagar Kumar, Bipin Bihari & Arpita Sinha, Advocates For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP

¶6

06 /02.08.2024:

¶7

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent State.

¶8

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Kunda P.S. Case No. 03 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No.138 of 2014 for the offence registered under sections 109, 120B, 220, 409, 420, 427, 467, 468 IPC, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra.

¶9

Earlier bail application of this petitioner was rejected on merits by the order passed by co-ordinate bench of this Court on 15.03.2019 in A.B.A No. 7145 of 2018 arising out of Kunda P.S. Case No. 3 of 2014 registered under Sections 109, 120B, 220, 409, 420, 427, 467, 468 of the IPC.

¶10

As per the prosecution case, the boundary wall was constructed over nonexistent graveyard in a village where there was no population of Muslim community as per the proposal noted by the Gram Sabha. Petitioner was a Block Development Officer at the relevant time and had identified the land selected for constructing the boundary wall.

¶11

The instant anticipatory bail application is being renewed on the ground that similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in ABA No. 4519 of 2023 and ABA No. 5408 of 2023.

¶12

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was an error of the Court in the earlier order that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. From the counter-affidavit, it will be evident that no such departmental proceeding was pending against him. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready and willing to refund Rs..4,32,693/- the cost which was incurred into construction of the boundary wall. A specific affidavit

¶13

-2-

¶14

was filed before co-ordinate bench regarding the monetary loss, caused to the State due to construction of the said boundary wall. It is further submitted that in such cases it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RameshKumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in Criminal Appeal No. 1741 of 2023 (Arising out of SLR (Cr.) No. 2358 of 2023) that in cases involving public money refund of the amount can be considered at the stage of bail.

¶15

Learned APP has opposed the bail petition. It is submitted that estimate had been passed for the project was Rs.11,17,200/- and as per page 2 of the case diary that under a design the boundary wall was constructed at a non-existing graveyard in which this petitioner had identified the plot.

¶16

Having considered the submissions of both sides and considering the materials on record, it appears that no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, the main allegation is against the petitioner is that he had identified the land where the boundary wall was constructed and payment of Rs.4,32,693/- was made to beneficiary committee. Considering the demography of the place there was no requirement of any graveyard.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid submissions, the petitioner, above named, is hereby directed to surrender before the learned court within three weeks from today, and in the event of his surrender/arrest, the petitioner, above named, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, in connection with Kunda P.S. Case No.03 of 2014, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, further subject to condition of payment of Rs.4,32,693/- by way of demand draft at the time of furnishing the bail bond without prejudice to the defence of the accused. The bail bond amount is to be deposited in the Government account indicated by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra.

¶18

(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)

¶19

Anjali/- cp2

Zahur Alam Alias MD Zahur Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zahur Alam Alias MD Zahur Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash Kumar Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jainul Miyan Alias Jainul Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suresh Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Upendra Kumar Mahli Alias Bablu Mahli Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kauleshwar Dangi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prabhu Bhuiya Vs the State of Jharkhand