In cases of systemic corruption and financial misconduct by public servants, bail may be denied where there is strong evidence of witness intimidation potential, particularly concerning subordinate officials, and substantial proof of structured money laundering, to prevent interference with the administration of justice.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 11.11.2025 in connection with Hazaribagh A.C.B. P.S. Case No.11 of 2025, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 1988, now pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge – II – cum – Special Judge, Vigilance (ACB), Hazaribagh.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the preliminary inquiry in this case was instituted vide P.E. No.24 of 2015 as back as on 27.08.2015 and F.I.R. was lodged after almost 10 years on 25.09.2025. He has further submitted that though the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., but from the F.I.R. the only portion which links the petitioner is in connection with certain inquiry when it came to light that Binay Kumar Singh and Smt. Snigdha Singh had purchased the property and their name was mutated vide Mutation Case No.481 of 2010-2011 and it has been alleged that a portion of the property in Khata No.95 plot no.848 was gairmazurwa land having the nature of jungle (forest), still mutation was done in favour of the purchasers of the forest land.

4. He submits that in the F.I.R. itself, it has been alleged that previously mutation of the forest land was done and the mutation was also cancelled, still mutation was done in favour of Binay Kumar Singh and Snigdha Singh. He has further submitted that the role of the petitioner, who was the then Deputy Commissioner of the district of Hazaribagh transpired when the co-accused, the then Circle Officer Alka Kumari, made a statement under Section 183 of BNSS before the court that the mutation was done at the instructions and pressure of the present petitioner, who was the then Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the impugned order at internal page 4 and submitted that the money transaction with respect to the wife of the petitioner, family members, Binay Kumar Singh and Snigdha Singh have been mentioned therein. With respect to the transactions, the petitioner has filed the supplementary affidavit and the explanation has been furnished right from paragraphs 4 to 7 of the supplementary affidavit.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that charge sheet has already been submitted against the petitioner on 05.02.2026.

7. The learned counsel has submitted that the co-accused Binay Kumar Singh has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in connection with another F.I.R. No.20 of 2025 registered on 24.11.2025. The learned counsel submits that in the said case initially interim bail was granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the bail order has been subsequently confirmed vide Annexure – 1 to the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner.

8. The learned counsel further referred to the 2nd supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, wherein, the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been annexed as Annexure- 2 which shows that the present petitioner has been enlarged on bail in connection with another case being ACB F.I.R. No.09 of 2025. He has submitted that repeated F.I.Rs have been instituted against the petitioner only to ensure that the petitioner remains in jail. This case arises out of ACB P.S. Case No.11 of 2025.

9. The learned counsel for the oppos