B.A./10063/2016 of Santosh Kumar Mishra Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Vigilance on 16 December 2016

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHIB. A. No.10063 of 2016

-----

Santosh Kumar Mishra

………. Petitioner.

-Versus-

The State of Jharkhand

.……... Opposite Party.

------

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

------

For the Petitioner :Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. AdvocateFor the Vigilance :Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate

------

03/16.12.2016: Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner was the Revenue Clerk in the Circle Office at Dhanbad. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that one complaint was made before the State Government on 04.12.2015 by one Ranjit Singh Parmar regarding demand of gratification by the petitioner for doing the mutation of the land which belonged to one Pallavi Kumari. Alongwith the said complaint, two video CDs were handed over. The first CD was of 22.08.2014 and the second CD of 01.12.2015. The learned senior counsel further submits that so far as the first CD is concerned, the same is quite vague as it has not been ascertained whether the petitioner was also seen in that CD where few persons were counting money. So far as the second CD dt. 01.12.2015 is concerned, the same is completely irrelevant as the land of the petitioner was already mutated on 12.11.2015 and, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to make any bargain with said Ranjit Singh Parmar. The learned senior counsel submits that the file of the said case does not corroborate the story as made out by the said complainant namely, Ranjit Singh Parmar. The inquiry which was conducted in pursuance of the Government's order also does not connect this petitioner with the alleged offence. The case filed at the instance of the said complainant Ranjit Singh Parmar is concocted. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 18.11.2016.

Learned counsel for the ACB opposes the petitioner's RP/

prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional District Judge-IX, Dhanbad in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No.583 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No.3507 of 2016.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)