Gopal Machhua vs The State of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Spl. P.P. for the A.C.B. Department.

Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Vigilance Case No. 37 of 2016, arising out of Ranchi Vigilance P.S. Case No. 35 of 2016, dated 02.05.2016, registered under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, lodged on the basis of one written report given by Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Sub-Inspector of Anti Corruption Bureau, Ranchi addressed to Officer In-charge of Vigilance Police Station, Ranchi alleging that on the basis of complaint of Pintu Gope, a preliminary inquiry was made against Ranjeet Kumar, who was posted as Marketing Secretary at Agriculture Market Board, Parsudih, Jamshedpur. During inquiry, it transpired that he has alloted three shops in the name of close relatives and earned disproportionate assets to his income. It is alleged that one Ashish Bhushan, who is brother-in-law had deposited only Rs. 16,200/- for security deposit. One Sanjay Kumar, who is nephew, had deposited security amount of Rs. 16,200/- and Anil Kumar, who is son of brother-in-law had deposited Rs. 16,200/- and they were alloted shops in violation of the norms and further preliminary inquiry transpired that petitioner has acquired huge property at Patna and in native place at Nalanda, detailed description is given in complaint, which is to the tune of Rs. 1,13,95,813/-, whereas during check period his income from known sources was Rs.87,70,273/-, so the difference of disproportionate assets is 29.95% to his known sources. On the basis of these allegations, the instant case has been instituted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the alleged offence is of the year 2007 and the F.I.R. has been lodged in the year 2016, after nine years and that too on private complaint. Petitioner was retired from service and he is about 70 years old and has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 796 in the case of Krishnanad Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and submitted that only the present income ought to have been taken into account, and the A.C.B. has wrongly assessed that his assets is more than 29.95%. So it is submitted that petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail, as no case under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out.

Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the A.C.B. produced the case diary and also filed counter affidavit. It further appears that this Court on 27.02.2017 had directed the petitioner to appear before the I.O. and his statement was recorded. Learned Spl. P.P. submits that on 11.04.2017, the petitioner appeared and statement was recorded and petitioner could not produce any document in support of 29.95% disproportionate assets and only gave oral explanation, which has no basis. Further, it is submitted that the statement of Sanjay Kumar, one of the beneficiaries of alloted shop was recorded and he has stated that petitioner was his uncle and at the instance of one Sumit, he has deposited Rs. 16,000/- and Sumit and Anil have also deposited Rs. 16,000/-, but no shop was allotted, neither money was returned by this petitioner. Similar is the statement of one Ashish Bhushan, who has stated the same facts. It appears that despite detailed questionnaire was given to this petitioner to show his income and assets, and petitioner appeared and filed his documents but after scrutiny, his assets was found to be 29.95% disproportionate to his known sources of income.

After going through the records and in view of the nature of allegation, prima facie, it appears that ACB has made out a case that petitioner has earned disproportionate assets to his known source of income more than 29.95%.

In view of serious nature of allegation, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.