Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 2015
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J
Philip Xalxo – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
B.A. No.4802 of 2025 | R.C. Case No. 02(A)/2025-R
For the Appellant: Mr. Bibhash Sinha
For the Respondent: Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati
The court ruled that continued detention without new grounds post-charge sheet submission is unjustified, allowing bail under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7 - Bail application - The petitioner sought bail after being charged with accepting a bribe of Rs. 40,500/- during an operation conducted by the CBI. The charge-sheet has been submitted; however, cognizance has not been taken as the sanction is pending. The petitioner has been in custody since 20th March 2025, and co-accused has been released on bail. (Paras 1, 5, 14, 15)
(B) Bail - The court noted the distinctions between the cases of the petitioner and co-accused, emphasizing that the petitioner’s continued detention serves no purpose since the charge has been submitted and no further tampering is anticipated. (Paras 9, 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The prosecution stemmed from complaints by contractors against co-accused regarding demands for bribes, detailing the procedural trap laid by the CBI leading to the arrest of the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The court found no justification for denying bail given the lack of ongoing investigation risk with the charge-sheet submitted, so bail was granted.
Issues: Key issues include the necessity of bail considering prior custody duration and the nature of allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that ongoing detention without further investigation or risk of evidence tampering is unjustified, hence granting bail serves justice.
Result: Bail application granted, and the petitioner is to be released upon certain conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application filed for bail under prevention of corruption act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. allegation of bribe acceptance detailed. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. co-accused released; distinction made from the petitioner's case. (Para 9 , 12) |
| 4. court grants bail based on lack of ongoing risk. (Para 14 , 15) |
Philip Xalxo, aged about 46 years, son of Sri Jyotish Xalxo, resident of Panchsheel Nagar, Gali Number 3, Ratu Road, Pandra, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Pandra O.P., District Ranchi. …. Petitioner Versus Central Bureau of Investigation .... Opp. Party CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate For the CBI : Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, Advocate ------
04/Dated: 18th July, 2025.
1. The instant application has been filed under Sections 483 and 484 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in connection with R.C. Case No. 02(A)/2025-R, registered for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) pending in the court of learned Spl. Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that the case registered on the basis of written complain of complainants namely Pawan Kumar Dubey and Amod Kumar Pandey who are contractors, against co-accused Sahil Ratusaria, IDSE, EE, Garison Engineer, Ranchi for demanding illegal advance of Rs. 54,000/- @ 2% of bill amount of Rs. 27 lakhs for clearing the pending bill of the complainants. After negotiation with the complainants, the co-accused Sahil Ratusaria agreed to accept bribe amount at the rate of 1.5% of bill.
After receiving complaint, a trap team of CBI officers was constituted and along with the complainants assembled in the office of ACB, CBI, Ranchi on 19.03.2025 at 9.00 a.m. and demonstration had been given by the CBI officials for trapping to the co-accused Sahil Ratusaria before the complainants.
Total 81 notes of Rs. 500 and a voice recorder along with new microSD card arranged and at 11.30 a.m. CBI team including complainant and witnesses in two government vehicles reached near office of accused petitioner, i.e., GE, MES, Near Sujata Chowk, Ranchi at 11.50 a.m. The complainants went inside the office of the petitioner and started waiting to the co-accused Sahil Ratusaria. At about 01.35 p.m., the co-accused Sahil Ratusaria was seen coming out of his office chamber. Both the complainants greeted co-accused Sahil Ratusaria and they were told to wait till his return.
At about 3.00 p.m., the complaints handed over the bribe money to the petitioner Philip Halxo, Cashier and this transaction was informed by the complainants to raiding party.
The raiding party rushed to the office of Philip Xalxo and disclosed their identity and TLO Sudhanshu Shekhar challenged him of accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 40,500/-, he admitted the acceptance of bribe amount from the complainants and thereafter after completing the formalities, Rs. 40,500/- was recovered and the case was instituted against the co-accused Sahil Ratusaria and the petitioner Philip Xalxo under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that a sum of Rs. 40,500/- has been recovered from his possession by the trap team, which has alleged to be made in lieu of the release of amount in favour of the complainant-contractor.
4. It has been contended that the work in question for which the amount was to be paid in favour of the complainant-contractor had already been paid, as such there was no occasion to constitute a trap team on 19th March, 2025.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the appellant is languishing in custody since the date of his arrest, i.e., from 20th March, 2025 and the charge-sheet has already been submitted and the case is waiting due to want of the sanction to be given by the competent authority.
6. The contention therefore has been raised that keeping the petitioner behind the bar, will not solve any purpose, since the charge s
