Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No.4441 of 2016 Rajeev Jain …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance …… Opposite Party With B. A. No.4656 of 2016 Nawlesh Kumar …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance …… Opposite Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Advocate (in B.A No. 4441 of 2016) Mr. Kailash Pd. Deo, Advocate ( in B.A. No.4656 of 2016) For the Vigilance : Mr. T. N. Verma, Special P.P. (in both cases) 04/Dated:
26. 07/2016 Since both the bail applications arised out of one and the same case, hence they are taken up together and disposed of by common order. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 81 of 2015 arising out of Ranchi Vigilance P.S. Case No. 71 of 2015 for the offence registered under Sections 406, 420, 120B, 409, 109, 384/34 of the Indian Penal Code, under section 13(2) r/2 section 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution case, in short, is that complainant Kushma Devi and Runiya Devi lodged their complaint alleging therein that their lands acquired for construction of Koderma Ranchi Rail Track for which award money granted by the Government and while payment of awarded money by cheque, the Land Acquisition Officer instructed the complainants to contact with Nazir, Navlesh Kumar (petitioner in B.A. No. 4656 of 2016) who asked them to come to his residence and demanded 10% of awarded amount as bribe. It is also case of prosecution that the co-accused by providing account opening form, withdrawal forms etc, asked the complainants that one Bank Account is required to be opened at Bank of India, Koderma Branch and obtained their signatures on blank forms including withdrawal forms and in such manner, the accused withdrew the money in connivance with Bank staffs. It is further alleged that such illegal withdrawal of commission money by cheating of different raiyats the huge amount of lakhs and lakhs of rupees used to be brought in the Axis Bank of Rajeev Jain (petitioner in B.A. No.4441 of 2016), who used to entertain the said Navlesh Kumar secretly in his chamber and used to assist him counting the money and also used to assist him in keeping the money in the name of the accused and his family members. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Rajeev Jain in B.A. No. 4441 of 2016 has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has committed no offence. The petitioner is not named in F.I.R. The petitioner is Branch Head of Axis Bank, Koderma Branch Koderma. The petitioner has no concern in opening Bank Accounts in Bank of India and the withdrawal from which money was withdrawn was not from the bank of this petitioner rather from Bank of India. The petitioner being the Branch Manager of the Bank and the Land Acquisition Officer who was premium customer of his bank used to ask the petitioner to get the money counted as such the petitioner has not reason to suspect of deny the services to the customer. There is no recovery of any incriminating articles from the person or possession of this petitioner. It is further submitted that employee of the petitioner's bank namely, Pankaj Sharma was cashier and used to count the money has been made a witness and his statement has been recorded under section 164 Cr.PC wherein it has been stated that on the instruction of this petitioner he used to count the money. It is further submitted that even if the allegations as alleged by the prosecution is taken to be true though denied the commission bribe money is deposited in the account of D.L.A.O and his relatives the petitioner cannot deny depositing money in the bank and the petitioner cannot known the money deposited was bribe money. The petitioner is in custody since 21.04.2016 and charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Nawlesh Kumar in B.A. No. 4656 of 2016 has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has committed no offence. It is further submitted that from perusal of seizure list, it is apparent that Rs. 4,08,000/- was recovered from the house of the petitioner apart from other articles, pass books of different banks etc, so far recovery of Rs. 4,08,000/- is concerned, the same is the consideration amount which the petitioner has received in connection with the sale of a landed property for which an agreement was also executed between the mother of the petitioner and one Naresh Thakur. The petitioner is regular visitor of the bank because the account of Land Acquisition Department is also running in the same bank operated by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 26.02.2016 and charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. In support of their contention, the learned counsels referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. C.B.I, reported in (2012) 1 SCC40and submits that the petitioners deserve the concession of bail. On the other hand, Mr. T. N. Verma, the learned Special P.P appearing for the Vigilance Department has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and referring to para 70, 84, 133 of the case diary has submitted that Rajiv Jain (petitioner in B.A. No. 4441of 2016) is very much instrumental and remain in connivance with Navlesh Kumar (Nazir) (petitioner in B.A. No. 4656 of 2016.) assisted in the crime. It is further submitted that Navlesh Kumar (Nazir) District Land Acquisition Officer, Koderma used to illegally withdraw his commission of 5% to 25% for the amount payable to the beneficiary of land acquisitioned for Railway Line from different riayats and after such withdrawal money of commission to the tune of lakhs of rupees used to be brought before the petitioner -Rajeev Jain, Manger of the Axix Bank, and further Rajiv Jain taking advantage of his post used to keep the amount of such commission deposited in the name of Navlesh Kumar and his family members and such fact came during investigation and also in the statement of Pankaj Sharma (cashier) of Axis bank recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the Vigilance referred to para 203 & 204 of the case diary regarding the complicity of petitioenr-Navlesh Kumar, on these grounds the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of bail. Considering the fact that investigation is complete in this case, trial will take some time, the above named petitioners are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Spl. Judge (ACB), Ranchi (in B.A. No. 4441 of 2016 ) and to the satisfaction of Sri Ashutosh Dubey, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Ranchi (in B.A. No. 4656 of 2016) or his successor in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 81 of 2015 arising out of Ranchi Vigilance P.S. Case No. 71 of 2015, subject to condition that the petitioners shall deposit their passport (if any) and they will co-operate with the trial. The petitioners shall remain psychically present before the Trial Court as and when their presence is required by the Trial Court, failing which it is open to the Trial Court to cancel their bail bonds. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satyarthi/-