Back
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
Anosh Ekka – Appellant
Versus
State Through Central Bureau Of Investigation – Respondent
Key Points: - Point 1 (!) - Point 2 (!) - Point 3 (!) - Point 4 (!)
ORDER :
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant herein, a former Minister in the State of Jharkhand has preferred the instant appeal against order dated 18th December, 2025 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi1[Hereinafter referred as “High Court”] in I.A. No. 13857 of 2025 arising out of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 850 of 2025, whereby the High Court rejected the appellant’s application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during pendency of the appeal.
4. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that an FIR being Vigilance Bureau P.S. Case No. 26 of 2008 came to be registered on the basis of a complaint filed by one Kumar Binod alleging that the appellant and another Minister, namely, Hari Narain Rai, had acquired assets disproportionate to their known sources of income. Pursuant to order dated 4th August, 2010 passed by the High Court in WP (PIL) Nos. 4700 of 2008 and 2222 of 2009, the investigation was assigned to Central Bureau of Investigation.
5. It is alleged that as against a pre-check asset of Rs. 10,48,827/-, the appellant amassed assets worth approximately Rs. 57.01 crores. These assets include land in and around Ranchi and a palatial bungalow. It
Suspension of sentence and release on bail can be allowed in cases where accused has served fairly long period of incarceration.
The court upheld that a second FIR can be maintained if substantial new evidence or distinct allegations arise, confirming the validity of proceedings regarding disproportionate assets under the Prev....
Amassing of assets disproportionate to known source of income – Accused persons are entitled to get benefit of doubt where recovery of money itself is doubtful.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond any shadow of doubt, and the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt when the prosecution fails to conclusively prove the charges.
Anticipatory bail granted under Section 438 CrPC for a government servant accused of disproportionate assets, emphasizing cooperation with investigation and non-flight risk.
The delay in filing the FIR, pending civil disputes, and the appellant's criminal history were considered in granting bail under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
