[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Shardanand Dev vs Acb Through The State Of Jharkhand. ... ... on 16 April, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
( 2026:JHHC:10888 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 1758 of 2026
Shardanand Dev, Aged 65 years, S/o Late Banarshi Lal Dev, R/o A-
126, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower, Mayapuri, South West Delhi, PO
Sector-2, Dwarika, PS Sector-9, Dwarika, New Delhi.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
ACB through the State of Jharkhand. ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
For the ACB : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, SPP
---
03/16.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with A.C.B. P.S.
Case No.21/ 2017, for the alleged offence registered under Section 13(2)
read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the case
is presently pending in the court of learned ADJ II cum Special Judge
(ACB), Hazaribag.
3. The prosecution is based on a written report of informant-
Indubhushan Ojha, Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Police Station,
Hazaribag stating that one Kushma Devi lodged complaints to the
Superintendent of Police, A.C.B. Hazaribag alleging that her land has been
acquired for construction of Koderma-Ranchi Rail Track, for which award
was granted by Government and while payment of awarded money by
cheque, the Land Acquisition Officer (petitioner), instructed the her to
contact Nazir, Navlesh Kumar, who demanded 10% of awarded amount
as bribe. It is further alleged that the co-accused, while providing account
opening from, withdrawal forms etc told her that one Bank account is
required to be opened at Bank of India, Koderma, Branch and obtained
their signatures on blank forms including withdrawal forms and, in such
manner, co-accused withdrew the money in connivance with bank staffs
from Kushma Devi, Bank accounts from 10 to 25%.
Finding the allegation to be true, Ranchi instituted case under
sections 406, 420, 120B, of the Indian Penal Code and under section 13(1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against petitioner. During
investigation it was found that petitioner, the then District Land
( 2026:JHHC:10888 )
Acquisition Officer, Koderma was posted from 01.03.2014 to 31.01.2016
and has acquired assets and properties disproportionate to his known
source of income During the financial year 2014-15, the petitioner had
deposited Rs. 54,02,287.00 in the Axis Bank, Koderma Branch accounts
in the name of his wife Smt. Sudha Dev, so called wife Smt Sumitra Devi,
Shri Mahendra Kumar (LIC Agent) and also for himself. It is further
alleged that during the financial year, 2014-15, the petitioner has
purchased 15 decimals land in the name of his family members valued Rs.
20,76,600.00. It is further alleged that the petitioner has acquired another
land in the name of his daughter Smt. Smita Deo valued Rs. 1,30,000.00.
The petitioner has also invested in LIC as premium amount for himself
Rs, 45,526.00 half yearly, Rs, 13,632/- in the name of his wife Smt. Sudha
Dev and Rs, 25,658.00 and Rs. 25,658.00 for other family members. It is
further alleged that the petitioner was having three storied building at
Chas, Bokaro, cost of about Rs, 75,000,00/- (excluding the landed
property) and total known income was found Rs. 1,64,78,887/-. Total
income from the salary of the petitioner from 01.03.2014 to 31.03.2016
was Rs. 16,47,166/- but total expenditure is Rs. 90.27,290/- which showed
that petitioner has acquired the various assets and properties
disproportionate to his known source of income during his tenure from
01.03.2014 to 31.01.2016 which is check period.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order/ judgment dated
14.08.2018 in A.B.A. No.5201 of 2017 and thereafter processes under
Sections 82 and 83 Cr. P.C. were issued, but the same were quashed by
this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 13.08.2025 in Cr. M. P. No.9117 of
2025 and thereafter the petitioner has renewed his prayer for anticipatory
bail.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the sole
ground for renewal of anticipatory bail is that the petitioner is not in an
appropriate physical condition to surrender before the learned Trial Court
as he is partially paralyzed.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party-ACB has opposed the
prayer and has submitted that there are direct and serious allegations
against the petitioner. He submits that by a detailed order was passed while
rejecting the earlier bail application of the petitioner. He further submits
that during the pendency of the earlier bail application, order was passed
( 2026:JHHC:10888 )
asking the petitioner to appear before the ACB giving him interim
protection, but in spite of that the petitioner did not care to comply with
the direction and ultimately the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected.
The following has been recorded in the earlier order of rejection of
Anticipatory Bail dated 14.08.2018 in A.B.A. No.5201 of 2017:-
Vide order dated 13.06.2018, learned counsel for the
petitioner was directed to supply the cell number of the
petitioner to the learned Spl. P.P. and learned Spl. P.P. was
directed to supply the cell number of the petitioner to the I.O.
and I.O. was directed to record the statement of the petitioner
by giving 72 hours' notice to the petitioner fixing date, time
and place. Thereafter this case was listed for today
08.08.2018.
On 08.08.2018, learned Spl. P.P. for the A.C.B. has stated that
despite issuance of notice, petitioner has not appeared before
the I.O., therefore, his statement has not been recorded by the
I.O.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this court finds
that the petitioner has been throughout not cooperating with the
investigation which has ultimately led to rejection of his anticipatory
bail application and the health reasons of partial paralysis as cited by
the learned counsel for the petitioner is not an acceptable ground to
grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner when there are
direct allegations against the petitioner and seen in the light of the
aforesaid conduct of the petitioner. Accordingly, the renewed prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner above named is rejected.
8. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court
by 30.04.2026.
9. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through
FAX/e-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 16.04.2026
Uploaded on:
sandeep/-
