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 corruption and land transfer irregularities.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State (ACB).

2. This application has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in connection with A.C.B. P.S. Case No.09 of 2025, registered for the offence under sections 409, 467, 469, 471, 420, 120B of Indian Penal Code and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending in court of learned Special Judge (A.C.B.), Hazaribagh.

3. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the F.I.R., the allegation is made of transferring of Khas Mahal land in favour of 23 persons and the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was posted as Khas Mahal Padadhikari, Hazaribagh, and he has initiated the file for transfer of Khas Mahal land in favour of 23 persons. He next submits that the petitioner was posted at Hazaribagh as Khas Mahal Padadhikari with effect from 17.01.2009 and remained in charge up to 31.01.2010. He next submits that the petitioner on 01.02.2010 (afternoon), assumed the charge of Deputy Director GPF Directorate, Department of Finance, Ranchi and the accused/petitioner has relinquished his charged as DPRO, Hazaribagh on 08.02.2010.

4. By way of placing the contents of the F.I.R, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned senior counsel further submits that so far as the renewal of lease and removal of the word ‘Sewayat’ are concerned, that allegation is not against the petitioner. He next submits that after receiving of the application for transfer, the petitioner has merely recommended to the higher authorities for approval. He also submits that these facts have been admitted by the respondent A.C.B in paragraph nos.22, 24, 25 and 27 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent A.C.B. He draws the attention of the Court to the order dated 10.08.2009 contained in Annexure-F in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent A.C.B and submits that by the said order, the application for transfer of the land has been instituted and the petitioner has sought the report from the Halka Karamchari and Kanoongo. By order dated 01.09.2009, the petitioner has forwarded the recommendation to the Additional Collector for permission. He next submits that thereafter there is no role of the petitioner and all the activities have been done by other officers including the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. He next submits that final decision of transfer was taken on 20.8.2010 and at that time, the petitioner was not posted at Hazaribagh. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 26.8.2025 and he has retired in the year 2016 and he is aged about 70 years having several ailments. He also submits that the petitioner has cooperated in the investigation and now the charge sheet has already been submitted against the petitioner. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner may kindly be granted regular bail.

5. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent A.C.B. has vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail of the petitioner and submits that in light of Annexure-A of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent A.C.B by way of indenture of deed of lease was given between Ganpat Rai Sarawgi in favour of the Deity Shri Shri Mahavir Ji in 1941. He next submits that by way of Annexure-B, in the year 1951, the said deed was purported to be cancelled by Ganpat Rai Sarawgi which was issued in favour of the Deity Shri Shri Mahavir