Kunal Kishor Singh vs The State of Jharkhand

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mandu P.S.

Case No. 263 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 263 of 2016 for the

offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the

petitioner moved A.B.A. No. 18 of 2017 before this Court which was rejected

under order dated 25.04.2017. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in this case merely because of the fact that at the

relevant time the petitioner was posted as District Land Acquisition Officer,

Ramgarh. Further, it has been submitted that under the Ramgarh district in the

extension of NH?33 under Mauza Jorakaram (Mandu) Thana No. 114,

Panchayat No. 02, Khata No 126, Plot No. 2677, Area 1 acre 92 decimals was

acquired for which the acquisition process was started on 07.12.2011 and under

the provisions of NHAI Act, the process of Section 3A and 3D was completed and

the award under section 3G was prepared on 27.03.2015 by the predecessor of

the petitioner. Thereafter concerned 15 raiyats have submitted their bond paper,

affidavit, family dependents certificate issued by C.O, Mandu, Copy of Khatiyan

up to date rent receipts, Pan Number, Identity Card, Adhar Card, details of Bank

Account with IFSC Code under their own signature. It is further submitted that

all the relevant documents including bond, papers of land, proof of identity, Bank account was submitted before the office clerk Sri Kesav Munda who

verified every document at his level and after his verification all those

documents were verified by Head Clerk, Praveen Kumar Sinha and Kanooongo,

Sri Anil Kumar and after their verification, a proposal was prepared and after

their signature it was presented before the Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh

(petitioner), thereafter petitioner being the District Land Acquisition Officer was

duty bound to transfer the compensation amount to the bank account of the

land owners through RTGS and all the payments were transferred in the account

of land holders through RTGS. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner

being the District Land Acquisition Officer, has no occasion to doubt the

authenticity of the proof of identity and the bank documents which were in the

name of beneficiaries duly verified and approved by the different officials and

therefore, in this background the petitioner being the District Land Acquition

Officer cannot be held responsible for any such latches. So, considering the

aforesaid facts, the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

It appears that by a common and detailed order dated 25.04.2017 the

anticipatory bail application being A.B.A. No. 18 of 2017 of the petitioner was

rejected by this court and this is second attempt in which no fresh ground has

been taken by the petitioner. So, considering the aforesaid facts and

circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby

rejected.