[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Binay Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 4 December, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:36312
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
B.A. No. 10499 of 2025
----
Binay Kumar Singh, son of late Sadhu Sharan Singh, aged about 61
years, r/o Plot no.2627 Holding No.1272, 3rd street, Anantpur, PO-
GPO, PS -Chutia, District Ranchi. .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand through Anti-Corruption Bureau
.... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ajit Kumar, Senior Advocate
Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
Miss Sonal Sodhani, Advocate
For the A.C.B. :- Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
Mr. Ritesh Kr. Gupta, Advocate
Ms. Sanya Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate
----
4/04.12.2025 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-A.C.B.
2. This matter was taken up yesterday, out of turn, as a
request has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to this Court to
dispose of the bail application of the petitioner within a week in Special
Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.18006 of 2025.
3. Yesterday, the matter was not concluded and in that view
of the matter, it was posted for today. In this way, this matter was taken
up out of turn, today.
4. The petitioner, seeking regular bail, who is in custody
2025:JHHC:36312
since 26.09.2025 in connection with ACB Hazaribagh P.S. Case No.11 of
2025 which has been registered under section 13(2) read with section
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and pending in the court of
learned Special Judge, ACB, Hazaribagh.
5. The F.I.R was registered alleging therein that at 5:00pm on
25.09.2025 on a written self-statement of DySP-cum-Officer in-charge, Anti-
Corruption Bureau PS Hazaribagh made at 07:00 am on 25.09.2025 alleging
therein that based on preliminary enquiry no. 18/10 dated 28.07.2010 and
24/15 dated 27.08.2015 by which 23 dakhil-kharij cases were scrutinized
(list of which is anneure A in the FIR) and during the enquiry it was found
that 05 dakhil-kharij of different plots were cancelled in year 2013 by an
order dated 16.05.2013 stating that the nature and type of the land is Gair
Majurwa (Khas) Jungle.
It has further been stated that rest of the Dakhil-kharij was not
disturbed, cancelled and no proceeding under section 4H of Bihar-Jharkhand
Land Reforms Act, 1950 was initiated. As such, it was suspected that then
concerned Circle Officer, Circle Inspector, Revenue Officer and karamchari
are indulged in the same and has misused their official post. It is further
alleged that one Dakhil-kharij has been done with respect to Khata No. 95
Plot No. 848 Area 28 decimal in favour of Binay Kumar Singh and Snigdha
Singh who purchased the land by a registered sale deed on 10.02.2010 and
Dakhil-kharij was done vide case no. 481/2010-11 dated 18.08.2010. It is
further alleged that out of 01 acre of the purchased land, there is no
objection with respect to 76 decimal of land and it is only on 28 decimal that
2025:JHHC:36312
there is an objection on the ground that the nature of land is mentioned as
forest. Accordingly, the present FIR has been instituted against several
accused, wherein Accused no. 1 to 5 are government servants and accused
no. 6 to 68 are sellers and purchasers of different portions of land.
6. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the contents of the FIR
and submits that on the basis of Preliminary Inquiry Nos.18/2010 and
24/2015, the FIR has been registered against the petitioner. By way of
reading the contents of the FIR, he submits that the allegation is made
that 14 plots relating to Gair Mazuruwa Khas and Forest Land were
mutated contained in Annexure-A of the FIR. He then elaborates his
argument by way of reading further and submits that in plot no.95, it is
alleged that 28 decimals of land which has been purchased by the
petitioner, was of Gair Mazuruwa Khas/ Forest nature land. He then
submits that the said land was purchased by the petitioner by way of
registered sale-deed dated 10.02.2010 which was later on mutated in the
name of the petitioner on 18.8.2010. He further submits that so far as
the rest of the area i.e. 72 decimals were said to be raiyati land. He next
submits that the only allegation is made that 28 decimals of land was
Gair Mazuruwa Khas/ Forest land and that has been mutated in favour of
the petitioner. He further submits that five Jamabandi Case has already
been cancelled after initiating the proceeding under Section 4(h) of Bihar
Land Reforms Act. He next submits that the allegations are made that
the rest of the mutation proceeding were concerned, investigation was
2025:JHHC:36312
going on. He then took the Court to the sale-deed annexed with the
petition and submits that the said land was purchased by the ancestors
of the seller of the land in the year 1915 and 1918 and in view of that,
false allegation is made against the petitioner. He next submits that in
light of the Annexure-A, which is part of the FIR, the name of the
petitioner is not there and in spite of that, the case has been registered
against the petitioner. In this background, he submits that in light of
section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, even if the proceeding was not
initiated by the Department, the petitioner is not liable. He further
submits that there are catena of decisions on the issue in question that
the mutation cannot be said to be a factor to decide the right, title and
interest of anybody and he relied in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State
of Jharkhand and Others passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.7354
of 2019 as well as in the case of Amitesh Kumar Sahay v. State of
Jharkhand reported in 2023 SCC OnLine (Jhar.) 2284. Relying on
the said judgments, he further submits that the long standing Jamabandi
was the subject matter in that cases and it has been held that long
standing Jamabandi cannot be cancelled. He next relied in the case of
Manish Kumar Kapsime v. State of Jharkhand reported in 2013
SCC OnLine (Jhar.) 231, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad,
through Its Commissioner v. State of Maharashtra [Civil Appeal
No.1968 of 2015] and further in the case of State of Jharkhand,
through its Principal Secretary v. Pradip Modi [LPA No.683 of
2018] as well as in the case of Most. Fatima Khatoon v. State of
2025:JHHC:36312
Jharkhand, through Its Chief Secretary [W.P.(C) No.1447 of
2017], Tapeshwar Nath Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, through,
Deputy Commissioner [W.P.(C) No.7770 of 2011], and Sabitri
Devi v. State of Jharkhand [W.P.(C) No.401 of 2021 and W.P.(C)
No.6147 of 2023] and further in the case of Mahendra Singh
and Another v. State of Jharkhand [W.P.(C) No.6609 of 2013],
Lalan Pandey, through his Power of Attorney Holder Umesh Jain
v. State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of
Registration and Others [W.P.(C) No.1246 of 2025] and in
Umesh Jain v. State of Jharkhand in W.P.(C) No.4967 of 2024,
Nawal Sharma v. State of Jharkhand Cr.M.P. No.1873 of 2015,
Dilip Kumar Pandey and Another v. State of Jharkhand in Cr M.P.
No.1356 of 2016, Satendra Nath Shahdeo v. State of Jharkhand
and Others in W.P.(C) No.2318 of 2022, Samiudullah v. State of
Bihar and Ors. SLP (C) No.(S) of 2025 @ Diary No.12674/2024,
Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Jharkhand in Cr.M.P.No.1646 of
2016 and Dinesh Singh v. The State of Jharkhand in W.P.(C)
No.7325 of 2011. Relying on the above judgments, he submits that in
the Cancellation of Jamabandi, long standing Jamabandi and protected
Forest was the subject matter and it has been held that long running
Jamabandi cannot be cancelled and further the mutation cannot confer
right, title and interest. He also draws the attention of the Court to the
Annexure-4 brought on record by way of filing the supplementary
affidavit and submits that once the Notification is there of the year 1953
2025:JHHC:36312
with regard to the protected forest, he submits that in view of that
Notification, even after 30 years, that is not in force. He lastly submits
that the petitioner is in custody from 25.09.2025 and in these
backgrounds, he submits that the petitioner may kindly be released on
regular bail.
7. Per contra, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent-A.C.B vehemently opposes the regular bail
application of the petitioner and submits that the subject matter of the
investigation is not the right, title and interest rather, the criminality,
which is being investigated by the A.C.B. He then submits that there are
materials on record to suggest that the said mutation was done in favour
of the petitioner in connivance with the Government officials, particularly,
the then Deputy Commissioner, who was posted at Hazaribagh. He also
submits that it has come in the investigation that there is mass
destruction of data and the documents with regard to the allegations
against the petitioner. He also submits that in the investigation, it has
been revealed that there are huge amount of money trail between the
petitioner and the then Deputy Commissioner and his family members.
He then submits that he will take the Court one-by-one to the documents
to demonstrate as to how the case has been registered and is being
investigated against the petitioner. He then draws the attention of the
Court to the contents of the FIR and submits that it has been stated that
Khata No.95, Plot No.848, area having 28 decimals was purchased by the
petitioner and his wife namely, Smt. Snigdha Singh and it has been also
2025:JHHC:36312
mutated. However, the mutation and Jamabandi have alreay been
cancelled and in view of that, 28 decimals of land was illegally mutated in
favour of the petitioner. By way of referring to the sale-deed, he submits
that it has been executed by Bhagwan Prasad Gupta and others seeing
that they are the successor-in- interest of the old raiyats who have said
to be purchased the property in the year 1915 and 1918. He then draws
the attention of the Court to the mutation document contained in page
no.46 and submits that the said land Jamabandi is created in the name of
Pradeep Kumar Jain and Rajesh Kumar Jain, son of Kishan Lal Jain,
whereas, the seller name is said to be Bhagwan Prasad Gupta, Ishwar
Dayal Gupta and others. He submits that it further strengthens the
investigation of the A.C.B. and the original Jamabandi is still in the name
of Pradeep Kumar Jain, Rajesh Kumar Jain, whereas, the sale has been
done by Bhagwan Prasad Gupta and others. He next draws the attention
of the Court to paragraph no.18 of the case-diary filed by the A.C.B. and
submits that, that fact has also come in paragraph no.300 of the case-
diary and he has placed the said paragraph in the Court proceeding. He
then submits that in paragraph no.300 of the case-diary, it has also come
that original raiyats are the Jains. He further submits that in course of the
investigation, the statement of one Alka Kumari was recorded under
section 183 of the BNSS, 2023 and she has stated that due to undue
influence exercised by the then Deputy Commissioner, namely, Vinay
Kumar Choubey, she was compelled to pass the mutation order in favour
of the petitioner and his wife. He further draws the attention of the Court
2025:JHHC:36312
to the statement of Alka Kumari and submits that she has also stated
that when she was called in the Chambers of the Deputy Commissioner,
one another person was sitting there and he has introduced Binay Kumar
Singh, who happened to be this petitioner. He then submits that initially
the show-room of the petitioner was seized by the ACB and at that time
the computer and other documents were also seized. He next submits
that, however, later on, the ACB has decided to un-seize the show-room
and in the investigation it has been revealed that several data and the
documents have been interfered with and mass deletion of date was
there. He next submits that the Letter no.2202 dated 18.11.2025 of
Circle Officer (Sadar), Hazaribagh has been received by the ACB wherein
he has disclosed the original document, i.e., land record of Mutation Case
No.481 of 2010-11 was found to be missing and not-traceable. He then
submits that the Sanha has been registered by the Circle Officer. He also
submits that there is huge money trail between the petitioner and the
then Deputy Commissioner and the family members of the Deputy
Commissioner and this petitioner. He further submits that there is
another case being ACB P.S. Case No.9 of 2025 which relates to Liquor
Scam. He next submits that in that case, the present petitioner is also
one of the accused and in that case, it has been revealed that a sum of
Rs.5 Crores (Five Crores) was paid to Vinay Kumar Choubey who is
closely associated with the present petitioner. He then submits that it
has also been revealed that Vinay Kumar Choubey has stated that all
money-related transactions of Vinay Kumar Choubey will be done by this
2025:JHHC:36312
petitioner. He then submits that the co-ordination between the petitioner
and Vinay Kumar Choubey has come in paragraph no.311 of the case-
diary. The Deputy Superintendent of Police-Cum-Officer Incharge, ACB,
namely, Sri Santosh Kumar has also stated in his statement about all
these facts and as to how this petitioner and Vinay Kumar Choubey and
his family are associated. He then submits that one M/s Brahmastra
Education Private Limited is also under the scrutiny and in that company
Kshitij Tripathi and Swapna Sanchita are the Directors who are the
brother-in-law and wife of Vinay Kumar Choubey, respectively and it has
also been disclosed that from 01.04.2010 to 09.07.2015 approximately
Rs.3.16 Crores was deposited in cash in the account of M/s Brahmastra
Education Private Limited of which the brother-in-law and the wife of
Vinay Kumar Choubey are the directors. He also submits that a sum of
Rs.72,97,500/- was paid by M/s NexGen Solution Technologies Private
Limited in the account of the wife of Vinay Kumar Choubey. He next
submits that, however, all these facts have also been accepted in the
supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. He also submits that the
Deputy Superintendent of Police- Cum- Officer In-charge, ACB has also
disclosed in paragraph no.5 that there is mass deletion of facts from the
digital devices to delete the evidence of money trail. He submits that if,
at this stage, the petitioner is granted regular bail, the ACB is having
serious apprehension that the petitioner will tamper with the evidences.
On these grounds, he submits that the regular bail to the petitioner may
kindly be rejected.
2025:JHHC:36312
8. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner, in reply, vehemently opposes and tried to demolish the
argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-ACB. He again took the Court to the contents of the FIR and
submits that the investigation is going on against the petitioner for 28
decimals of alleged illegal mutation or purchase of the land, however, the
name of the petitioner is not there in the Annexure-A. He then submits
that in paragraph no.142 of the case-diary, it has come that the
document of the said mutation is in jeopardized condition, however, the
ACB has wrongly stated that the document is missing. He further
submits that in paragraph no.174 also, that fact has come in the case-
diary. He draws the attention of the Court to the Sections 12, 13 and 14
of the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 and
submits that the procedures are prescribed therein as to how the
mutation has to be done and when any application is made in light of the
provisions made therein, the Circle Officer is bound to pass the order. He
next submits that Alka Kumari is also an accused and her statement has
been taken, which cannot be without compliance of the proviso to
Section 183 of BNSS, 2023. By way of referring the documents with
regard to the payment made in the year 2023 to the wife of Vinay Kumar
Choubey, he submits that she is a qualified lady and she was providing
consultancy works to M/s NexGen Solution Technologies Private Limited
and in view of that, she was paid by M/s NexGen Solution Technologies
Private Limited. He also submits that the Car was purchased by Vinay
2025:JHHC:36312
Kumar Choubey at the price of Rs.6,69,000/- and the payment was made
by him, however, that Car was purchased in the name of his father and
even wrongly that has been shown as money trail by the A.C.B. He next
submits that these facts have been disclosed in the paragraph no.40, 42,
44 and 45 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. He then
submits that, in these backgrounds, the ACB is unnecessarily harassing
the petitioner and the petitioner may kindly be released on regular bail.
9. In view of above submissions of the learned counsels
appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court is examining this matter
keeping in mind that 'bail is a rule, and jail is an exception'.
10. In course of the argument, it has been pointed out that
the petitioner-herein is also accused in ACB P.S.Case No.9 of 2025, in
which, he has been granted anticipatory bail and it has been further
pointed out that ACB has filed the application before the same court to
cancel the anticipatory bail of the petitioner on the ground of tampering
with the evidence, in which notice has already been issued by the
learned court.
11. What has been noted herein-above, in the arguments of
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the
respondent-A.C.B, it transpires that the then Circle Officer namely, Alka
Kumari has stated in her statement under section 183 of the BNSS, 2023
that she was called by the then Deputy Commissioner namely Vinay
Kumar Choubey in his Chambers and the person who was sitting there
was introduced to her saying that he was Binay Kumar Singh, who is the
2025:JHHC:36312
petitioner and she has also stated that she was forced to pass the
mutation order in favour of Binay Kumar Singh (petitioner) and his wife.
She has also disclosed that the report with regard to the land was also
prepared on the direction of the then Deputy Commissioner of
Hazaribagh. The nexus of the petitioner along with the then Deputy
Commissioner has come in several paragraphs of the case-diary, which
has been noted in the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent ACB and those paragraphs have been perused by the Court.
In paragraph no.298 of the case-diary, it has been recorded that the
Team was constituted to find the original records of the Mutation Case
No.481 of 2010-11 and the Team has not been able to find out the
original record and a Sanha was registered. In paragraph no.300 of the
case-diary, it has come that the name of the raiyati of the said land is
recorded as Pradeep Kumar Jain and Rajesh Kumar Jain and in the
mutation order, the raiyat is said to be Jains, however, the land has been
sold by Bhagwan Prasad Gupta and others and it is stated that the said
land was purchased by the ancestors of the seller in the year 1915 and
1918. It has further revealed in the investigation that there is no
relationship between the seller and said Jains. In the statement of Sri
Santosh Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police- Cum- Officer Incharge,
ACB, Ranchi it has come that how money transaction has taken place
between the petitioner and Vinay Kumar Choubey and his family. The
amount is huge and it has been stated by him that Rs.72,97,500/- was
credited in the account of the wife of Vinay Kumar Choubey. However,
2025:JHHC:36312
only one Bill is there, however, TDS document has been brought on
record in the supplementary affidavit saying that prior to that also the
TDS was deducted. The further materials are there with regard to one
company namely, M/s Brahmastra Education Private Limited of which the
Directors are the brother-in-law and the wife of Vinay Kumar Choubey
and in that case approximately Rs.3.16 Crores were deposited in cash.
12. In light of the materials on record, there are prima facie
materials against the petitioner. It has further come in the investigation
that there is deletion of mass data from the computer and other devices
of the petitioner's company and the petitioner has already been granted
anticipatory bail in ACB PS Case No.9 of 2025 and the ACB has been
compelled to file the cancellation of anticipatory bail in which notice has
been issued by the competent court.
13. It is well-known that while granting bail, the Court has to
keep in mind, the nature of accusation, nature of evidence in support
thereof, and severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the
character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused
at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered
with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar
considerations. It has also to be kept in mind, that for the purpose of
granting bail, the Legislature has used the words, "reasonable grounds
for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means that court dealing
with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a
2025:JHHC:36312
genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to
produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected
at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
14. Prima facie, the present case involves serious, structured
and systematic fraud undertaken with the deliberate intention to grab the
land of the State. The seriousness of the offence becomes worse with the
involvement of public officials and the creation of the fake documents
and efforts to make those false documents to appear genuine by
misusing the official systems and legal procedure. Furthermore, as per
the allegation levelled in the F.I.R as well as the materials collected
during the course of investigation, it is alleged that the present petitioner
in collusion with other co-accused, prepared and used forged and
fabricated document as genuine with an intention to illegally acquire the
valuable land of the State.
15. There are prima-facie materials and the apprehension of
the respondent-A.C.B cannot be ruled out, that if the petitioner is granted
regular bail, the petitioner will tamper with the evidences, as instance is
already there which prima-facie further strengthened in light of the notice
issued by the concerned court with regard to cancellation of the
anticipatory bail of the petitioner in A.C.B. P.S. Case No.9 of 2025.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the economic
offence in the Case of Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India reported
in (2014) 8 SCC 768, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. C.B.I. reported in
2025:JHHC:36312
(2013) 7 SCC 439 and in the case of Union of India v. Hassan Ali
Khan reported (2011) 10 SCC 235 and the gist of those judgments
speak of that economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and
involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and
considered as grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a
whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the
country. The modus-operandi as adopted by the petitioner which has
come on the record in connivance with the then Deputy Commissioner.
The tampering of the evidences, if the petitioner is granted regular bail,
prima-facie, cannot be ruled out that too, seeing the influence of the
petitioner.
17. In view of above facts, reasons and the analysis, this
Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage,
and accordingly, this bail application being B.A.No.10499 of 2025 is,
hereby, dismissed.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated: 04th December, 2025
SI/
A.F.R.
Uploaded on 05.12.2025 .
