Philip Xalxo Vs Central Bureau of Investigation ( C.B.I )

2025:JHHC:19758

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.4802 of 2025

Philip Xalxo, aged about 46 years, son of Sri Jyotish Xalxo, resident of Panchsheel Nagar, Gali Number 3, Ratu Road, Pandra, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Pandra O.P., District Ranchi. …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Central Bureau of Investigation .... Opp. Party

¶6

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶7

------

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate For the CBI : Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, Advocate ------

¶9

04/Dated: 18^th July, 2025.

¶10

The instant application has been filed under Sections 483 and 484 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in connection with R.C. Case No. 02(A)/2025-R, registered for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) pending in the court of learned Spl. Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi.

¶11

The prosecution story in brief is that the case registered on the basis of written complain of complainants namely Pawan Kumar Dubey and Amod Kumar Pandey who are contractors, against co-accused Sahil Ratusaria, IDSE, EE, Garison Engineer, Ranchi for demanding illegal advance of Rs. 54,000/- @ 2% of bill amount of Rs. 27 lakhs for clearing the pending bill of the complainants. After negotiation with the complainants, the co-accused Sahil Ratusaria agreed to accept bribe amount at the rate of 1.5% of bill.

¶12

Page 1 of 5

¶13

2025:JHHC:19758

¶14

After receiving complaint, a trap team of CBI officers was constituted and along with the complainants assembled in the office of ACB, CBI, Ranchi on 19.03.2025 at 9.00 a.m. and demonstration had been given by the CBI officials for trapping to the co-accused Sahil Ratusaria before the complainants.

¶15

Total 81 notes of Rs. 500 and a voice recorder along with new microSD card arranged and at 11.30 a.m. CBI team including complainant and witnesses in two government vehicles reached near office of accused petitioner, i.e., GE, MES, Near Sujata Chowk, Ranchi at 11.50 a.m. The complainants went inside the office of the petitioner and started waiting to the co-accused Sahil Ratusaria. At about 01.35 p.m., the co-accused Sahil Ratusaria was seen coming out of his office chamber. Both the complainants greeted co-accused Sahil Ratusaria and they were told to wait till his return.

¶16

At about 3.00 p.m., the complaints handed over the bribe money to the petitioner Philip Halxo, Cashier and this transaction was informed by the complainants to raiding party.

¶17

The raiding party rushed to the office of Philip Xalxo and disclosed their identity and TLO Sudhanshu Shekhar challenged him of accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 40,500/-, he admitted the acceptance of bribe amount from the complainants and thereafter after completing the formalities, Rs. 40,500/- was recovered and the case was instituted against the co-accused Sahil Ratusaria and the

¶18

Page 2 of 5

¶19

2025:JHHC:19758

¶20

petitioner Philip Xalxo under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶21

The allegation against the petitioner is that a sum of Rs. 40,500/- has been recovered from his possession by the trap team, which has alleged to be made in lieu of the release of amount in favour of the complainant-contractor.

¶22

It has been contended that the work in question for which the amount was to be paid in favour of the complainant-contractor had already been paid, as such there was no occasion to constitute a trap team on 19^th March, 2025.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the appellant is languishing in custody since the date of his arrest, i.e., from 20^th March, 2025 and the charge-sheet has already been submitted and the case is waiting due to want of the sanction to be given by the competent authority.

¶24

The contention therefore has been raised that keeping the petitioner behind the bar, will not solve any purpose, since the charge sheet has already been submitted, as such there is no occasion of tampering with the evidence.

¶25

It has also been contended that co-accused person, namely Sahil Ratusaria, has already been released on bail vide order 20.06.2025 passed in B.A. No. 4330 of 2025 by this Court.

¶26

While on the other hand, Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, learned counsel appearing for the CBI has made serious opposition by contending

¶27

Page 3 of 5

¶28

2025:JHHC:19758

¶29

that the case of the present petitioner is distinct to that of the case of one Sahil Ratusaria, who has been released on bail by this Court in B.A. No. 4330 of 2025, as no money was recovered from possession of said accused.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the CBI, based upon the ground that the money has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, has submitted that it is not a case where the privilege of regular bail is to be given in favour of the petitioner.

¶31

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the finding recorded by the learned court while rejecting the prayer for bail and also the order dated 20.06.2025 passed by this Court in B.A. No. 4330 of 2025.

¶32

As per the allegation, a sum of Rs. 40,500/- has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner by the trap team constituted for the aforesaid purpose, on the complaint made by the complainantcontractor.

¶33

The petitioner is lying in custody since 20^th March, 2025. The chargesheet has been submitted. The sanction is still awaiting, the cognizance therefore has not been taken.

¶34

Further, the co-accused, namely, Sahil Ratusaria has already been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 4330 of 2025.

¶35

However, a distinction has been made on the accusation/allegation in between the petitioner and Sahil Ratusaria, but this Court on considering the aforesaid fact the petitioner is lying in custody since

¶36

Page 4 of 5

¶37

2025:JHHC:19758

¶38

20^th March, 2025 and the charge-sheet has already been submitted on 11^th April, 2025, but the cognizance has not been taken due to want of sanction, therefore is of the view that the instant bail application deserves to be allowed.

¶39

Accordingly, the instant bail application stands allowed.

¶40

In consequence thereof, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees

¶41

Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Spl. Jud0ge, C.B.I., Ranchi, in connection with R.C. Case No. 02(A)/ 2025-R, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial, failing which, the learned trial court is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

¶42

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶43

Samarth

¶44

Page 5 of 5

Philip Xalxo v. Central Bureau of Investigation ( C.B.I )

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Philip Xalxo v. Central Bureau of Investigation ( C.B.I )

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

Chandra Prakash Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Naresh Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance Acb

Sahedeo Prasad Alias Sahdeo Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand through CBI

M/S.Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

M/S.Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Central Coalfields Limited through Sri Manish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand