Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Vijay Pratap Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand Through A.C.B. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the ACB.
2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Hazaribagh ACB P.S. Case No.09 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 409, 467, 468 (indicated as 469 in impugned order), 471, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code Section 13(2) and 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II cum Special Judge, Vigilance (A.C.B.) Hazaribag.
3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case however he has neither any dishonest intention nor any role in the alleged offence. He further submits that the petitioner has been implicated only because he was Power of Attorney holder of the land in question, which has been sold to different persons. He then submits that by the registered deed dated 25.02.1941, Seth Ganpat Rai Sarogi dedicated the land in question admeasuring 2.75 acres in favour of deity Sri Sri Mahabir Ji and created a scheme of managem
The court emphasized that a Power of Attorney holder implicated in fraudulent land transfer with substantial evidence of collusion cannot be granted bail.
The court emphasized strict adherence to prohibitions against the unlawful transfer of property, basing its decision on the severity of allegations and the uncooperative behavior of the petitioner du....
Government officials must act in accordance with legal mandates, and failure to do so, especially in corruption cases, justifies denial of bail and necessitates custodial interrogation.
The court granted bail considering the petitioner's age, health conditions, cooperative stance during the investigation, and insufficient grounds for continued detention despite allegations of corrup....
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....
The court's decision to grant bail was based on the completion of investigation, primarily documentary evidence, and the accused's custody for the past year, in line with the principles laid down by ....
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
