SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Jhk) 317

2012 (2) East Cr C 564 (Jhr)
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
H.C. MISHRA. J.
Uma Shankar Malviya - Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation - Opp. Party
A.B.A. No. 207 of 2012.
Decided On : March 1. 2012.

Advocates Appeared:
K.P. Deo, for the petitioner.
Md. Mokhtar Khan, for the C.B.I.

The seriousness of the charges and direct allegations of abetment influenced the court's decision to dismiss the anticipatory bail application.

Headnote:

Anticipatory Bail - Dismissal of Bail Application - Disproportionate Assets

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an OSD to an Ex-Minister, is apprehending arrest for abetment in illegal acquisition of wealth by the Ex-Minister. The charge sheet alleges that the petitioner negotiated deals for acquiring immovable property and facilitated donations through fictitious names.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, considering the serious charges and direct allegations of abetment against the petitioner.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail in a case related to possession of disproportionate assets by an Ex-Minister.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the serious nature of the charges and the direct allegations of abetment against the petitioner in dismissing the anticipatory bail application.

Final Decision: The anticipatory bail application was dismissed by the court.

ORDER

By the Court. - Heard the learned counsel for the .petitioner and learned Special P.P. for the prosecution.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connec40n with RC 5-A/2010 AHD. Ranchi for the offence under Sections 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2)/13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. The• case relates to possession of disproportionate assets by the Ex-Chief Minister and the other Ex-Ministers of the State and so far as this petitioner is concerned, the petitioner was posted as OSD to one Bhanu Pratap Shahi, who is also an Ex-Minister of the State.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is of abetment in illegal acquisition of wealth by said Bhanu Pratap Shahi, with whom, the petitioner was attached as OSD. The charge sheet submitted by the C.B.I. shows that the petitioner had negotiated various deals through which immovable property were acquired by Bhanu Pratap Shahi in the names of other persons, about which, it is alleged in the charge sheet that the property dealer involved in the deal had disclosed before the C.B.I. that the actual payment of the said property was to the tune of Rs.1 crore, but as the documentary evidence was not supporting the same, its registered value was taken into account. It also appears that there was a trust in the name of Dehati Sthapna Nyas, which got registered on 13.03.2008. in which, there is allegation against the petitioner to have shown donations through the fictitious names and the donors were found to be fictitious persons and non-existant persons. In the charge sheet, the list of the witnesses has also been given, which includes the name of Shri Vinay Kumar Jalan. The statement of Shri Vinay Kumar Jalan was also recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein the said Vinay Kumar Jalan has stated that he was running a law firm and the petitioner had brought the documents of the said trust for the registration before the Income Tax Commissioner. He has also stated that the donations were made in cash even though, donation of more than Rs.20.000/- was not permitted to be made in cash. The statement of Vinay Kumar Jalan would further show that the petitioner had furnished a list of donors and on the instructions of this petitioner, the income tax return of those donors were prepared by Vinay Kumar Jalan. so as to show their validity before the Income Tax Authorities. He has also stated that actually the money shown as donations were the money of trusties themselves, as the persons who were shown as donors, had no capacity to make the donations of such amount. He has specifically mentioned about two persons, who had made donations, one of whom was a vegetable vendor and other was a newspaper vendor. He has so stated that whatever cash donations were made, they were undeclared money of the petitioner and other persons.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that 'the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, only being OSD of the Ex-Minister. The petitioner had to follow the dictates of the Ex-Minister. It has also been submitted that there are Income tax returns of all the persons who were shown as the donors in the trust and the same were accepted by the Income Tax Authorities. Learned counsel has also submitted that the income tax returns of those donors would show that they had furnished the address of the said Vinay Kumar Jalan, but the said Vinay Kumar Jalan has not been arrayed as accused. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Placing reliance on two decisions of Honble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others" reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 and Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, learned counsel has prayed for anticipatory bail.

6. Learned Special P.P. for he C.B.I., on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail submitting that it has been found in the




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top