[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Sabeyan Surin vs The State Of Jharkhand Through on 19 February, 2026
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.352 of 2025
Sabeyan Surin, aged about 49 years, son of late Prem Uday Surin,
resident of village- Jamtoli, P.O. & P.S.- Bano, District - Simdega,
State- Jharkhand ... Appellant
- Versus -
The State of Jharkhand through
Anti Corruption Bureau (Vigilance) ... Respondent
------
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
---
I.A. No.11730 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal No.352 of 2025
C.A.V. on 15.01.2026 Delivered on: 19.02.2026
This Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.352 of 2025 has been filed on behalf
of the appellant challenging the judgement of conviction dated
25.10.2024 and sentence dated 28.11.2024 passed by Sri Yogesh
Kumar Singh, learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Ranchi in Vigilance (Spl.) Case No.09 of 2017, by which the
appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and
13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
sentence to undergo R.I. for four (04) years and to pay the fine of
Rs.5,000/- and R.I. for five (05) years and to pay the fine of
Rs.5,000/- respectively. However, both the sentences have been
directed to run concurrently.
2. I.A. No.11730 of 2025 is filed on behalf of the appellant for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that one Kuru P.S.
Case No.158 of 2016 dated 05.12.2016 related to vehicle accident
case was pending against the informant's son namely, Md. Amir
Subahani, in which the informant of the case namely, Abdul
Rashid had submitted a release petition for Bajaj Discover Bike
bearing no. JH08C-5553 before the Civil Court, wherein, the court
below had called for report from the I.O. Sabeyan Surin and when
the complainant met to him, then he demanded Rs. 1,000/- bribe.
The complainant was not ready for that and so, he submitted
written complaint to the S.P. Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi and who
deputed to Police Inspector Kameshwar Jha, vide dated
16.02.2017 to verify and to submit the report related to the matter
and he submitted the verification report vide dated 22.02.2017.
Thereafter, a trap-team was constituted and the appellant namely
Sabeyan Surin was caught red handed on 22.02.2017 with
Rs.1,500/- by the members of raiding party of ACB and on that
basis, the case was registered, as Ranchi Vigilance P.S. Case No.
08/2017 dated 22.02.2017, u/s 7/13 (2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 against sole accused Sebeyan Surin, A.S.I.
of Kudu P.S.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Trial
Court is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is
submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely
implicated.
It is submitted that no verification was conducted by the
ACB with respect to the genuineness of the complaint and with
regard to demand of bribe money.
It is submitted that allegation against the appellant is
incorrect because prior to lodging of the Vigilance case on
16.02.2017, the appellant had already submitted his report on
14.02.2017 in concerned case in the court of learned A.C.J.M.,
Lohardaga, which has been marked as Exhibit-B. It is submitted
that pre-trap in memorandum and post-trap memorandum were
prepared by the I.O. Shankar Kamti, who is also Investigating
Officer of this case and who was also a member of raiding party.
It is submitted that the member of raiding party cannot be
Investigating Officer of this case.
5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
appellant has produced the copy of order dated 01.07.2025 passed
in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.218 of 2025 by this Court and also in the
case of Bhagwan Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in
(1976) 1 SCC 15 and in the case of State By Inspector of Police,
Narcotic Intelligence Bureau, Madurai, Tamil Nadu vs.
Rajangam reported in (2010) 15 SCC 369..
It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the
search or seizure of any of his prosecution witnesses. It is
submitted that evidences of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 namely Abdul
Rashid and Kaushlendra Kumar Jha cannot be relied upon as they
could not state as to what happened to the glass, which was seized
vide seizure list in connection with phenolphthalein bowl and for
the purpose of Litmus test. It is submitted that P.W.3 has also
arrested the appellant but he also failed to state from where
phenolphthalein bowl was brought from the police station. There
was no evidence as to when the phenolphthalein bowl was brought
from the police station at the time of arrest of the appellant.
It is further submitted that P.W.4 namely Anmol Bhengra
was not present at the time of pre-trap memorandum and he
admitted during the evidence. It is submitted that P.W.5 namely
Ram Swarup Bhagat is the shadow witness but he does not know
as to which incriminating paper was seized by him. It is submitted
that P.W.6 namely Santosh Kumar is a formal witness. It is
submitted that P.W.7 namely Shadab Rana has proved the several
documents and had stated that property of search and seizure was
prepared by Shankar Kamti, who is the I.O. of this case and he
had also put his signature. It is submitted that the appellant has
remained in custody on 22.02.2017 till 10.03.2017 during trial.
Thereafter, he is in custody since 25.11.2024 i.e. more than one
year and around two months. Hence, the appellant may be
enlarged on bail.
6. On the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. appearing on behalf of
the A.C.B., who has appeared through V.C., submitted that the
impugned judgement and sentence passed by the learned court
below is proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that
the appellant was caught red handed with note of Rs.1,500/-
(Fifteen Hundred) and tainted money was recovered from his left
hand. It is submitted that prosecution is not required to prove
production of phenolphthalein bowl from the police station as
these are mere the formalities. It is submitted that this is a case of
taking bribe of Rs. 1,500/-. It is submitted that all the prosecution
witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. Hence, the
prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected.
7. Perused the Trial Court record and considered submissions
of both the sides.
8. It transpires that the complainant Abdul Rashid, who is the
informant of this case, had filed an application on 16.02.2017
before the S.P. Vigilance, Ranchi, alleging therein that the
appellant namely Sabeyan Surin had demanded Rs.1,000/- as
bribe for submitting the report in connection with Motor Vehicle
Accident case, in which, son of the informant was involved. The
complaint of the informant was verified by Sri Kameshwar Jha,
Inspector ACB and submitted his verification report on
22.02.2017, finding the allegations to be true against the appellant.
Thereafter, a trap team was constituted and the trap team had
caught the appellant with Rs.1,500/- near Dipika sweets at Zima
Chowk and three notes of Rs.500/- each, amounting to Rs.1,500/-
were recovered from him.
9. It transpires that the chargesheet was submitted against the
appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 20.04.2017.
10. It transpires that the charges were framed against the
appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 20.09.2017.
11. During trial, the prosecution got examined nine (09)
witnesses, who are as follows:-
(i) PW-1 Abdul Rashid, informant,
(ii) PW-2 Kaushlendra Kumar Jha, Verifying Officer,
(iii) PW-3 Choudhary Prakash Narayan, Trap team member,
(iv) PW-4 Anmol Bhengra, Trap team member,
(v) PW-5 Ram Swarup Bhagat, Jr. Statistical Assistant,
(vi) PW-6 Santosh Kumar, The then Dy. S.P.-cum-Officer,
(vii) PW-7 Shadab Rana, who proved the report of SFSL,
(viii) PW-8 Sunil Kumar Singh, ASI and
(ix) PW-9 Shankar Kamti Investigating Officer.
12. It transpires that the prosecution has got proved several
documents marked as Exhibit -1 to Exhibit-16, in total 41 exhibits,
which have been mentioned at paragraph-5 of the impugned
judgement in detail and as such, is not being repeated them.
13. The prosecution has also proved the seized three G.C. Notes
of Rs.500/-, which has been marked as material Exhibits - I, I/1
and I/2 respectively.
14. The defence has not examined any witnesses in support of
its case.
15. However, the defence has proved the following documents
as Exhibits, which are as follows: -
(i) Exhibit-A, Production-cum-seizure list dated
22.02.2017,
(ii) Exhibit-B, Carbon copy of letter no. DR 263/17 dated
14.02.2017 related to Kudu P.S. Case No.158/2016.
16. Thereafter, the learned court below, after hearing both the
sides, had convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonments as mentioned earlier and to
pay of fine counts as mentioned earlier. Hence, the instant
criminal appeal has been filed.
17. P.W.1, Abdul Rashid, who is the informant of the case, stated
during evidence that he had filed a complaint before the S.P.
Vigilance Department, his son Amir Subahani had filed an
application for release of the vehicle from Kuru P.S. from the Civil
Court for issuing No Objection Certificate but the appellant
Sabeyan Surin, ASI had demanded Rs. 1,000/- as bribe. He proved
his signature in written application marked as Exhibit-B. After
filing the application before ACB, he again contacted the
appellant from his mobile phone. He was asked to pay Rs. 1500/-
instead of Rs. 1000/-. Thereafter, he alongwith Kaushlendra
Kumar Jha went to the office of appellant in the police station to
meet him and while the informant Abdul Rashid was talking with
the appellant, then Kaushlendra Kumar Jha was also listening
their talk by concealing his identity and during the course of talk,
the appellant demanded Rs. 1500/-. Thereafter, Kaushlendra
Kumar Jha has submitted his verification report. Thereafter, he
was called in the Vigilance Office on 22.02.2017 and a physical
demonstration was made with regard to the process. Thereafter,
he was asked by the investigating officer to produce three notes of
Rs. 500/-, which were given as bribe to the appellant and he
produced the three notes of Rs. 500/- and upon which, some
chemical was pasted on those notes by one officer and he was
instructed to hand over these notes to only the appellant namely
Sabeyan Surin. Thus, he alongwith team went to Kuru and
contacted the appellant on phone who asked him to arrive near
Dipika Sweets at Zima Chowk. Thereafter, he went there and
handed over the said notes to him and after receiving the notes by
the appellant, he gave signal and upon which, the members of
raiding party arrived and caught the appellant and Rs. 1500/-
containing three notes of Rs. 500/- each were recovered from his
left hand and a seizure list was prepared in presence of
independent witnesses. He put his signature on post-trap
memorandum, marked as Exhibit-3. He also stated that both the
hands of the appellant were put in two separate water glass and
colour of the water became pink and both the bottles got sealed
separately and then the seizure list was prepared.
18. During the cross-examination, he stated to have gone
Vigilance office only twice but shown ignorance about GC Notes
memorandum and post-trap memorandum. He has shown
ignorance about two glasses which were kept by the police
officials. He also shown ignorance about the release application
of motorcycle filed before the Lohardaga Court. He has also
shown ignorance about the report of I.O. in the said case and also
shown ignorance about release of the said vehicle. Thus, PW-1
has supported his case.
19. PW-2 namely Kaushlendra Kumar Jha, who is the Verifier
and posted as Inspector in ACB on 16.02.2017. He proved
endorsement of then S.P. Vigilance on the application of the
informant, marked as Exhibit-1/1. He proved his verification
report marked as Exhibit-4 and its endorsement marked as
Exhibit-4/1. He further proved Exhibit-5/1 and 5/2, which related
to constitution of raiding team and approval of then S.P. Vigilance
Bureau, Ranchi. He proved his signature on pre-trap
memorandum, marked as Exhibit-2/2. He further proved Exhibits-
6 and 7/1, which relate to property notes and property search. He
further proved post-trap memorandum in his signature, marked as
Exhibit-8/1.
20. However, during cross-examination, he stated to have gone
to Kuru P.S. on 20.02.2017 but has submitted his verification
report on 22.02.2017 and in which, he has not mentioned to have
gone to Kuru P.S. on 20.02.2017. He further proved the
Production-cum-Seizure list, marked as Exhibit-A, which was an
application dated 14.02.2017 sent by the appellant Sabeyan Surin
to the learned A.C.J.M., Lohardaga in connection with Kuru P.S.
Case No. 158 of 2016, showing no objection for release of
motorcycle. He has shown unawareness about preparation of
Search Members of raiding team prior to arrest of the appellant.
Thus, PW-2 namely Kaushlendra Kumar Jha has also supported
the prosecution case as he had verified the application against the
appellant and was also present at the place of occurrence when the
seizure of Rs. 1,500/- was made from the hands of the appellant.
21. P.W. 3 namely Choudhary Prakash Narayan, who was the
Inspector in Vigilance Department and member of raiding team,
has proved the constitution of raiding team by the then S.P.,
marked as Exhibit- 5/3. He also stated that the appellant was
demanding bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- which was verified by the
Police Inspector Kaushlendra Jha and on verification, demand of
bribe amount of Rs.1,500/- was found to be correct. Thereafter,
chemical process was conducted in which he was also involved.
Thereafter, the informant was given three notes of Rs.500/- each
totaling Rs.1,500/- and number of notes were mentioned in G.C.
notes memorandum and phenolphthalein powder were found
pasted therein and those notes was returned to the informant to
furnish the same on demand of the appellant. He has proved the
signature on the notes memorandum marked as Exhibits-2/3, 2/4
and 2/5 respectively. Thereafter, on 22.02.2017 they proceeded for
Kuru P.S. from Vigilance Office by two government vehicles and
there waited for the appellant to contact the informant and finally
at 5:45 p.m., the appellant informed the complainant on his mobile
phone to arrive on the road at Zima Chowk and then they
proceeded to Zima Chowk. On seeing the informant, the appellant
demanded the bribe which was handed over by the complainant to
the accused and he made signal by itching his head. Thereafter, on
the signal of the informant, Dy. S.P. Santosh Kumar caught the left
hand, whereas P.W.-3 namely Choudhary Prakash Narayan caught
the right hand of the appellant and recovered three notes of
Rs.500/-each, which were tallied with the numbers mentioned in
G.C. notes memorandum and found the same to be correct. This
was compared in presence of two independence witnesses
(Shadow witnesses P.W.3 Ram Swaroop Bhagat and P.W.4 Anmol
Bhengra). Thereafter, water solution of sodium carbonate was
prepared in the glass and both hands of appellant were put inside
the glass and the solution became pink, which was sealed in
separate bottle. Search and seizure were prepared by the I.O.
Shankar Kamti which has been marked as Exihibit-7. Thereafter,
accused was arrested and the paper of the motorcycle related to
accident case was also seized and paper regarding call for report
of bike accident case was also seized and then seizure list was
prepared by the I.O. Shankar Kamti marked as Exihibit-9.
22. During cross-examination, he stated that he was not involved
in the verification of application of the complainant. He also stated
that Kaushlendra Kumar Jha, Verifier and Investigating Officer
Shankar Kamti were members of raiding team.
23. During further cross-examination, he proved letter No. D.R.
No.263/17 dated 14.02.2017 related to Kuru P.S. Case No.158 of
2016 and forwarded to court on 14.02.2017 and sealed on
17.02.2017 and the said letter marked as Exhibit-B on behalf of
the defence side i.e. the appellant. However, he could not say
about the list prepared at the place of occurrence relating to
carrying article. He further stated that before catching the hand of
the appellant, no search was made. He could not tell the number
of two vehicles, in which there had gone for trap.
24. P.W.4 namely Anmol Bhengra, who was posted as Senior
Audit Officer, Cooperative Society, Ranchi was a shadow witness.
He claimed to be present at the time of physical verification of
chemical process. He also stated that complainant was directed to
produce three notes of Rs.500/-each total amount of Rs.1,500/-
and also informed that after money transaction, he will indicate by
itching his hand and some chemicals were pasted on the notes and
returned to the complainant. Thereafter, on 22.02.2017 at 2:00
p.m., they proceeded from the Vigilance Bureau Office by Govt.
vehicle from the place of occurrence and around 5:30-6:00 p.m.
in the evening, the complainant was sent to the accused/ appellant
near Zima Chowk. On signal, members of raiding team
apprehended the appellant and three notes of Rs.500/- each were
recovered from the left hand and seized notes were marked as
Material Exhibit-I, 1/1 and 1/ 2 respectively and sealed envelope
was marked as Exhibit-6/1. Then chemical process was done and
both the hands of the accused-appellant were put inside the glass.
However, he could not say about the Police Officer who has
washed the hands of the appellant. He also could not say about
person who had prepared the seizure list. He also stated that
Exhibit-B letter dated 14.02.2017 received in the court of C.J.M.,
Lohardaga relating to motorcycle of the informant. Thus P.W.4
has tried to support the prosecution case on the point of search and
seizure of Rs.1,500/- from the hands of the appellant.
25. P.W.5 namely Ram Swarup Bhagat, who was also a shadow
witness and had seen the chemical process. He has also supported
the occurrence regarding the recovery of G.C. notes from the left
hand of the appellant and compared with memorandum of G.C.
notes.
26. However, during cross-examination, he also stated that
paper was received from the court of ACJM, Lohardaga vide
memo no. 05 dated 3.01.2017, which was related to Kuru P.S.
Case No.158 of 2016, in which the report was called for by the
learned Trial Court. The paper of vehicle was marked as Ext.-B.
27. P.W.6 namely Santosh Kumar is retired Dy. S.P., however, at
the relevant point of time, he was posted as Dy. S.P.-cum-Officer-
In-charge, Vigilance Department, Ranchi and has proved
endorsement on verification report marked as Exhibit-4/2. He has
proved the formal F.I.R. marked as Exhibit-12. He further proved
the constitution of raiding team marked as Exhibit-5/4. He has
supported the fact and proceeding of pre-trap memorandum and
for directing the complainant to produce Rs.1500/- notes of
Rs.500/- each and chemicals pasted on these notes were returned
to the complainant to hand over the same on asking of the
appellant. He had proceeded to the place of occurrence on two
vehicles, but could not remember the vehicle numbers of those
two vehicles. Prior to catching hold of the hand of appellant, no
search of this witness and P.W.3 Choudhary Prakash Narayan
made. There were 5-10 persons present near the place of
occurrence but no person was made as an independence witness.
28. P.W.7 namely Shadab Rana, who was posted as Assistant
Director in SFSL, Ranchi, is a formal witness. He has proved the
report of sealed paper envelope marked as Exhibit-A and three
sealed polythene phials marked as B, C and D respectively. He has
proved the report typed by Rahul Kumar, Scientific Assistant,
marked as Ext.13.
29. P.W.8 namely Sunil Kumar Singh, who was posted as A.S.I.
in Vigilance cell, has proved the signature of Sri Amol Binukant
Homkar, then D.I.G. South Chotanagpur Range, Ranchi on
sanction order marked as Exihibit-14.
30. However, during cross-examination, he stated that on
27.03.2017, he was not posted in the office of then D.I.G. South
Chotanagpur Range, Ranchi and this sanction order (Exhibit-14)
was not filed in his presence. Thus P.W.8 is a formal witness.
31. P.W. 9 namely Shankar Kamti, who is the Police Inspector
and I.O. of this case, has prepared the list of raiding party. He has
also supported and corroborated the prosecution case that
appellant was apprehended and three notes of Rs.500/- each total
Rs.1,500/- were recovered from him and numbers of notes were
compared with pre-trap memorandum, which was found to be
correct. However, it is also seen that he was also member of
raiding party.
32. However, from perusal of Exhibit-A which is marked on
behalf of the defence-appellant which is Production-Cum-Seizure
List dated 22.02.2017, it would appear that a copy of Memo No.05
dated 03.01.2017 sent by the learned Court of ACJM, Lohardaga
with regard to Kutru P.S. Case No. 158 of 2016 relating to
Motorcycle No. J-08C-5533, the Court below had called for a
report. Even the letter dated 14.02.2017 sent by ASI, Sabeyan
Surin i.e. appellant giving his report to the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate in connection with Kutru P.S. Case No.
158 of 2016 with regard to seized Motorcycle J-08C-5533 was
seized.
33. Exhibit-B is a copy of Letter dated 14.02.2017 sent by the
appellant namely, Sabeyan Surin to learned ACJM, Lohardaa and
from perusal of the same, it reveals that the appellant Sabeyan
Surin had recommended for release of the Motorcycle No. J-08C-
5533 which belong to the son of the Complainant-Informant.
34. Therefore, it would appear that the appellant had prepared his
report of 'no objection' for release of Motorcycle in question on
14.02.2017 for being sent to the court of the learned ACJM,
Lohardaga whereas the appellant was caught by ACB Officials on
22.02.2017 i.e. after Eight (08) days although letter dated
14.02.2017 was seen/placed before the learned ACJM, Lohardaga
on 23.02.2017.
35. Although the seizure of Rs. 1500/- has been proved on behalf
of the prosecution from the hands of the appellant on 22.02.2017
but the defense of the appellant for sending the report earlier on
14.02.2017 is also to be seen. It can be examined during final
hearing as to when the report dated 14.02.2017 sent by the
appellant was received on 23.02.2017 or some earlier date.
36. It also appears that the appellant was in custody from
23.02.2017 to 10.03.2017 i.e. for around 15 days during trial and
thereafter he is in custody since 25.11.2024 after date of
conviction i.e. for around One (01) Year and more than Two (02)
Months and thus the appellant has remained in custody for around
One (01) Year and more than Two (02) Months.
37. In view of the discussion made above, the sentence of the
appellant is suspended during pendency of trial and the appellant
namely, Sabeyan Surin is directed to be released on bail, on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned
Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in Vigilance
(Spl.) Case No. 09 of 2017, subject to the condition that one of the
bailors must be the own relative of the appellant and also subject
to the condition that both the bailor must be having landed
property in their own specific name and also subject to the
condition that the appellant shall deposit the passport, if any,
before Trial Court and shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the learned Court below and his bailors shall submit
their respective Aadhar Cards and Mobile Numbers before the
learned Trial Court below and he shall not change his Mobile
Numbers and the appellant shall be represented through his
counsel on the date of final hearing of this case.
38. Thus, I.A. No. 11730 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed
of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Dated: 19.02.2026
RKM-Jay/
