Hari Narayan Rai vs State of Jharkhand

R.K. Merathia

Both the bail applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

B.A. No. 3718 of 2011

This bail application arises out of R.C. 04(A)/10AHD ?, instituted on the basis of the order dated 4.8.2010 passed in W.P. (PIL) No. 4700 of

2008, under which the Vigilance Case No. 26 of 2008 ( Special Case No. 32 of 2008) dated 26.11.2008, registered under sections 406, 409,

420, 423, 424, 465 and 120B of IPC and Section 11/13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was

transferred to CBI, (hereinafter referred to as the CBI Case).

B.A. No. 05855/2011

This bail application arises out of E.C.I.R. No. 01/PAT/09/AD of 2009, registered u/s 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money

Laundering Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as Money Laundering Case).

B.A. No. 3718 of 2011 & B.A. No. 05855/2011

Mr. Biren Poddar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made common submissions in both the bail applications as follows.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court dismissed the prayer for bail in both the cases being S.L.A. (C Rl.) No. 9121 of 2009 and S.L.P ( Crl) no. 9586 of

2009 on 19.2.2010 at that stage with liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months. Accordingly, these bail applications have

been filed. The petitioner is in jail from 17.8.2009 i.e. for about 27 months out of the maximum punishment of 7 years; and he has remained in jail

for longer period than others who have remained in hospitals for long periods. It will take years in conclusion of trial as there is long list of

witnesses and documents. The case was handed over to CBI on 4.8.2010 but CBI has not completed the investigation till date. There is big

difference in the amounts involved, mentioned in the FIR, the chargsheet in Vigilance case, and the Money Laundering Case. Moreover there is

mistake in the calculation of the amount. All the movable and immovable properties which are subject matter of these cases have been attached on

9.12.2010. Relying on the order dated 13.12.2010, passed in B.A. No. 9220 of 2010 in the case of Kamlesh Singh it was submitted that there

were more serious charges against Kamlesh Singh but he was granted bail on the ground inter alia that he had remained in jail for about one year

but the investigation was not complete. He also relied on the judgment of Hon''ble Suprme Court dated 23rd November, 2011, passed in the case

of Sanjay Chandra ( Cr. Appeal No. 2178 of 2011) and analogous cases, and submitted that petitioner should be granted bail.

On the other hand, Mr. Mokhtar Khan and Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing in CBI Case and Money Laundering Case, referring to

the records, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted as follows.

The prayer for bail was rejected earlier on merits.

The valuation of assets in the CBI case is still tentative. There is no mistake in calculation in the Money Laundering Case, as the total amount is the

calculation of the value of the assets of all the column/boxes.

The CBI has been collecting materials from different sources in this case involving acquisition of huge assets by the petitioner. CBI has sought

documents from Enforcement Directorate and Income Tax Department. Enquiry is also being made with regard to the fictitious construction

Firms/Companies created by the petitioner for procuring Govt. work and money laundering. However, the investigation in CBI case is almost

complete and in Money Laundering Case the charges have already been framed on 19.11.2011.

Even after petitioner''s bail was rejected by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, he avoided attending court on so many dates on the purported ground of

sickness. By his influence, he was not produced in court by the jail Authorities on several dates and only after notice was issued to the Jail

Authorities by the court, he was produced before the Court. Petitioner is not allowing the trial in Money Laundering case, to proceed as he has

realized that his guilt will be proved and his political life may come to an end. Petitioner cannot take advantage of the judgement of Sanjay Chandra

( Supra) as he himself is guilty for delaying the investigation/trial. On the one hand, the petitioner has been delaying the investigation/trial and on the

other hand he is claiming bail on the ground of delay.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner declared his and his wife assets together to the tune of about Rs.2 lacs at the time of contesting

M.L.A. election in the year 2005 but after he became M.L.A. and then the Minister, he acquired huge moveable and immovable assets in his own

name and in the name of his family members within a short period of three years. By his influence he got the works allotted in the name of his

fictitious construction Firm/Company. He acquiring huge assets and also indulged in Money Laundering. Absolutely evasive replies were given by

him and his wife about the assets. The allegations are very serious. The order granting bail to Kamlesh Singh in Vigilance case is of no help to the

petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of this case, as noticed herein. Further, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the judgement of Sanjay

Chandra ( Supra). From the records, it appears that the petitioner himself is responsible for delaying the investigation/the trial on one pretext or the

other, as noticed above. He won M.L.A. election even when he was in jail. The purported ground of sickness was taken on number of dates to

avoid appearance in court and for delaying the case. Even the Jail Authorities did not produce him on several dates. Only after the court issued

notice, the Jail Authorities produced the petitioner in court. All these things indicate petitioner''s influence and his powers which are likely to

adversely affect the enquiry/trial. Prima facie, the petitioner, who claims to be a public representative, is involved in looting and laundering huge

public money. As already noticed above, petitioner is also abusing the process of law and is making mockery of the justice delivery system.

After hearing the parties at length and considering all the aspects of the matter, in my opinion, the petitioner does not deserve bail in these cases.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail in both the cases is rejected.