Bali Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Acb

¶1

2025:JHHC:16307

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B.A. No. 4947 of 2025

¶4

---------

¶5

Bali Singh, aged about 52 years, son of Guru Charan Singh

¶6

Fulchand Singh, aged about 56 years, son of late Karu Singh

¶7

Kewal Singh, aged about 60 years, son of late Baijnath Singh All are resident of Daurwa, Kewal, PO-Kewal, PS-Barhi, DistrictHazaribagh … … Petitioners Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand through A.C.B.

¶9

… … Opp. Party

¶10

---------

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ----------

¶12

For the Petitioners : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, APP

¶13

04/Dated: 20^th June, 2025

¶14

The instant application has been filed under Sections 483 and 484 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with Vigilance PS Case No. 42/2010 (Spl. Case No.43/2010) for the offence registered under Sections 420,120-B, 434, 409, 467, 468, 469 471/109 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 wherein cognizance of offence has been taken under sections 420,120-B, 434, 409, 467, 468, 469 471/109 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (Vigilance)-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Hazaribagh.

¶15

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in this case.

¶16

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that it is a case where the occurrence said to be occurred sometime in the year 1991 for which FIR was instituted on 16.09.2010, i.e., after lapse of about 19 years.

¶17

It has been contended that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Nandlal Mahto and Asha Ram Mahto have been directed to

¶18

1

¶19

2025:JHHC:16307

¶20

be released on bail vide order dated 25.04.2025 in B.A. No.2788 of 2025 passed by this Court. The co-accused, namely, Sudhir Kumar Sinha has been granted bail vide order dated 20.12.2023 in B.A. No.11408 of 2023 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Other co-accused persons, namely, Manohar Yadav and Kalender Yadav have been granted privilege of anticipatory bail vide order dated 07.04.2025 passed in A.B.A No.1933 of 2025 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶21

It has been contended that the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case on 12.12.2023 and the petitioners are languishing in judicial custody since 19.04.2025.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners, based upon the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the case of the petitioners are identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused persons and, as such, instant bail application may be allowed so that the petitioners may be released from judicial custody.

¶23

While on the other hand, Mr. Vishwanath Roy, the learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but he is fair enough to submit that it is a case of the year 1991, in which, FIR has been instituted after lapse of about 19 years. He has also admitted the fact that these petitioners are beneficiaries. He has not disputed the fact that other similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted privilege of regular bail and anticipatory bail.

¶24

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

This Court has taken into consideration the aforesaid fact that the other similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted privilege of anticipatory bail/regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court is of the view that the instant bail application deserves to be allowed.

¶26

Accordingly, the instant bail application stands allowed.

¶27

2

¶28

2025:JHHC:16307

¶29

In consequence thereof, the petitioners named above, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge (Vigilance)-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Hazaribagh, in connection with Vigilance PS Case No. 42/2010 (Spl. Case No.43/2010), subject to the condition that the petitioners shall co-operate in the trial, failing which, the learned trial Court is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

¶30

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶31

sudhir /-

¶32

3

Bali Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through Acb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bali Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through Acb

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

Akhilesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Anti Corruption Bureau

Gurvinder Singh Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation

Dr.Brajenra Kumar Tiwary Alias B.K.Tiwary Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sahil Ratusaria Vs the Union of India through CBI

Dilip Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand through Anti Corruption Bureau (Acb) Ranchi

Chandra Prakash Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand