The court emphasized that a Power of Attorney holder implicated in fraudulent land transfer with substantial evidence of collusion cannot be granted bail.

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 management through appointed Sewayat. He next submits that by a registered deed dated 29.10.1951, the settlor Sri Ganpat Rai Sarogi tried to revoke and annul the earlier deed of dedication dated 25.02.1941, however, the authority has not accepted the same. He submits that pursuant to that, the land was leased out and subsequently the Sewayats have filed the renewal petitions, which have been allowed and the Sewayats have given Power of Attorney to the petitioner and, thereafter, the petitioner along with Sudhir Kumar Singh has transferred the land. He also submits that the petitioner is in custody since 05.10.2025 and the charge-sheet has been submitted on 24.12.2025. He further submits that the petitioner was not taken for interrogation by the ACB. He also submits that the allegations are of the year 2009-10 and the case has been registered in the year 2025. According to him, there is no money trail so far as the petitioner is concerned. He then submits that the Government has granted permission and, thereafter, the land has been sold by the petitioner. He next submits that one of the co- accused Binod Chandra Jha, who was the Khas Mahal Officer at relevant time, has been granted regular bail by this Court. On these grounds, he submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner is only Power of Attorney holder and he is in custody and charge-sheet has been submitted, regular bail may kindly be allowed to the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the ACB vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner being the Power of Attorney holder, has manipulated all the things and has assured the purchasers that he is having high connection with the officers including with the then Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag and he will facilitate everything for transfer of the land in question. He further submits that these facts are supported by the witnesses whose statements have come in the case diary under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He then submits that one witness, namely Sri Manish Narayan has stated that the land has been sold to 23 persons and this petitioner along with Sudhir Kumar Singh has approached Manish Narayan and stated that he will facilitate everything as he is having high connection including the then Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag. He next submits that same facts have