Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Sudhir Kumar vs The Union Of India Through C.B.I on 19 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 82 of 2022
------
Dr. Sudhir Kumar ... Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India through C.B.I.
... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Deepankar, Advocate
For the C.B.I. : Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocate
------
Order No.02 Dated- 19.01.2022
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner
personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the
stamp reporter within two weeks after resumption of the Court in
physical mode.
In view of the personal undertaking of the learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the
stamp reporter are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court
for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with R.C.
Case No. 3(A)/2011-R registered under sections 420/120B of the
Indian Penal Code and under sections 13(2) read with section
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under sections
52/55 of the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act.
The Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner
submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner
being the Director of M/s. Jagannath Life Care Pvt. Ltd. purchased
45 decimals of land bearing plot no. 564B, Khata No. 27 and by filing
second application for sanction of construction of B+G+4 structure
showing the RC Plot No. 568 in place of actual Plot Number being
RS Plot No. 564, he obtained the sanction for construction of the
hospital fraudulently. It is further alleged that the petitioner has
made the construction in a public open space. It is next submitted by
the Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the allegations
against the petitioner are all false and admittedly the file relating to
BC Case No. 531 of 2008 through which file the said sanction for
construction was accorded to the petitioner is missing and there is
no allegation against the petitioner of committing theft of the said
file. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been held responsible
for the alleged fraud on the basis of the entry made in the building
construction case register maintained in the year 2008 which entry
was neither made by the petitioner nor the said entry bears the
signature of the petitioner, so that the petitioner can be fastened with
the knowledge that in the said register, entry was made in respect of
the RS Plot No. 568 instead of RS Plot No. 564. It is next submitted
that the last town planning was done in the year 1982 and in the year
1982 the part of the land in which the petitioner has built up his
hospital is alleged to have been fallen in an open space as declared in
the developmental plan even though the said plot of land is
admittedly a private land and has never been acquired by the town
planning authority hence in the absence of any acquisition of the
private land on the same is not open to be declared as an open space
in the developmental plan. It is further submitted by the learned
Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that it is a settled
principle of law that unless a land belonging to a private person is
acquired by the planning authority, the same cannot be incorporated
in the development plan and in this respect, the learned Senior
Counsel relies upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India, in the case of Raju S. Jethmalani & Others Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Others, reported in (2005) 11 SCC 222. It is further
submitted that the land in question where the structure of the
hospital has been made has never been acquired by the Ranchi
Regional Development Authority, hence the same cannot be treated
as a valid open space under the said development plan as the land
belongs to a private party. It is next submitted by the Senior
Advocate appearing for the petitioner, drawing attention of this
Court to page no.52 of the brief that the said land has been
purchased by the petitioner after permission for the same was
accorded by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in terms of
Resolution of the Government bearing no. 5324 dated
30.12.2005(annexure-3), according to which, the Healthcare Service
has been declared as an industry and undisputedly the structure of
the building is being utilized now for Healthcare Service. It is next
submitted that charge sheet has already been submitted in this case
and the petitioner has all along cooperated with the investigation of
the case, hence the C.B.I. did not feel it necessary to arrest him
during the investigation of the case. It is then submitted that the co-
accused has already been given the privilege of anticipatory bail by a
coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.03.2016, in A.B.A.
No. 3669 of 2015. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes
to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the
petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the C.B.I. opposes the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail.
Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as
discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the
above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six
weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special
Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi, in connection with R.C. Case No. 3(A)/2011-R
with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial of
the case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr.
P.C.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sonu/Gunjan-
