Patna High Court
Baidyanath Das vs The State Of Bihar on 7 May, 2025
Author: Prabhat Kumar Singh
Bench: Prabhat Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30483 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2012 Thana- E.C.I.R (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL)
District- Patna
======================================================
Baidyanath Das son of Late Jai Das Retd. Additional Commissioner, Patna
Municipal Corporation, Resident of Mohalla- Jawahar Colony, Kankarbagh,
P.S.- Kankarbagh, Dist.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. the Union of India through The Assistant Director, Directorate of
Enforcement, Govt. of India Patna zonal Office, Bank Road, Chandpura
Place, Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Salahuddin Khan, Advcate
Mr. Ravi Shankar, Advocate
For the O.P./UOI : Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, Sr.Adv.(ASG)
Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh (ED)
Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh (J.C.)
For the State : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-05-2025
This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in connection with Special Trial (PMLA) Case No. 08
of 2022, arising out of ECIR/19/Pat/2012, instituted for offences
punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (for short "PMLA").
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Charge Sheet No
70/2012 dated 27.07.2012 in FIR No.54/2010 dated 21.07.2010
was filed before the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna and
the petitioner namely Baidyanath Das was one of the charge-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30483 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
sheeted accused person. It is alleged in the charge-sheet that
accused person namely K. Senthil Kumar, IAS (Batch-96), the
then Commissioner of Patna Municipal Corporation, in collusion
with Baidyanath Das, the then Additional Commissioner of Patna
Municipal Corporation and others, caused wrongful loss of
Rs.8,76,81,110/- to the Patna Municipal Corporation and thus,
committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471,
120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 13 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly. ECIR/19/PAT/2012 was
registered for the purpose of investigation under PMLA and
prevent money laundering. It is further alleged that during the
tenure of K Senthil Kumar, IAS, in connivance with other officers
has taken illegal gratification from builder, mafia, developers,
private suppliers and service providers and caused huge loss to
PMC. The major revenue losses were caused on account of legal
statutory approval of maps for construction of 130 multi-storied
apartments to the tune of Rs. 7,46,66,669/ and of legal allotment of
hoardings of five advertisement agencies to the tune of
Rs.40,38,133/-. It is further alleged that under the influence of
Hotel Lobby of Patna, accused K. Senthil Kumar caused revenue
loss of Rs.64,41,225/- on account of lesser collection of holding
tax from five hotels of Patna and other irregularities causing loss
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30483 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
of Rs. 25 lakhs to Patna Municipal Corporation. It is further
alleged that Baidyanath Das (petitioner), in collation with main
accused K. Senthil Kumar and other officials of PMC, has violated
the financial rule and regulation of Patna Municipal Corporation
like two-way communication, street light, high-mast light and
diesel pump set for solid waste management, construction of
slaughter house by allocation of work to the favoured entities. It is
further alleged that Baidyanath Das (petitioner) had assisted K
Senthil Kumar in according approval of maps for different projects
in direct violation of existing rules and regulations resulting in
huge loss to government exchequer and generation of proceeds of
crime.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner is a
Retired Additional Commissioner of Patna Municipal Corporation
and the entire allegations of conspiracy, collusion and assistance
against this petitioner is false, fabricated and imaginary. Petitioner
has got no concern with the alleged financial irregularity and he
does not know about the technicalities of Map Planning which is
the exclusive work of the Engineers and ultimate authority is the
Commissioner to pass or reject the Map. The file of Map Planning
moves from clerk to J.E.. Executive Engineer and then to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30483 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
Additional Commissioner for onward transmission to the
Commissioner and the petitioner is just like a Post Office, who
simply forwards the file of Map Planning to the Commissioner for
final approval and is not responsible in any violation in Map Plan.
He further submits that petitioner was only concerned to verify
fixed rate of amount per square feet from the advertisers, which is
fixed by the Government, and petitioner always directed to realize
the fixed amount per square feet. The petitioner is not the authority
of any purchase or any agreement and it is the exclusive business
of the Commissioner vis-a-vis the dealer of Contractor and has
nothing to do with any agreement with any contractor or tender.
Being the Additional Commissioner, the petitioner used to hear
appeal against the assessment of holdings but he received no such
complaint from any corner. He next submits that the petitioner has
been implicated in the instant case without any cogent evidence to
connect him with the alleged occurrence and there is no material to
show that the petitioner received illegal gratification from any
quarter. The name of this petitioner has merely been added as an
accused to surmise as conspirator. From perusal of complaint
petition, it is apparent that neither there is any disproportionate,
income nor any property was purchased by the petitioner in his
entire service and as such, no property of bank account was seized
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30483 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
or attached by the Enforcement Directorate (for short "ED"). The
real culprits are the Engineers/Executive Engineers who are
accused in the Vigilance case, have been left out by the ED and
this petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case as an
scapegoat.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that
petitioner in accused in one case i.e. Special Case No. 54 of 2010,
arising out of Vigilance Case No. 54 of 2010 with exactly similar
allegation, in which, this petitioner has already been granted
anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order dated 07.03.2012 passed
in Cr.Misc. No. 1545 of 2012 (Appexure P/2). Only allegation
against this petitioner is that he assisted main accused Senthil
Kumar in committing irregularity and causing revenue loss to the
government. He further submits that the case, in which entire
allegation was levelled against co-accused Senthil Kumar, has
been quashed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order
dated 09.11.2023 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 4420 of 2023 (Annexure
P/3).
5. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the case of petitioner for grant of pre-arrest bail is squarely
covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Tarsem Lal versus Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2024
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30483 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
(3) PLJR (SC) 119 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
once cognizance is taken of the offence punishable under Section 4
of the PMLA, the Special Court is seized of the matter and the ED
& other authorities named in Section 19 of the PMLA cannot
exercise the power of arrest of the accused shown in the complaint.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that once complaint is
filed, it will be governed by Section 200 to 205 of Cr.P.C. as none
of the said provisions are inconsistent with any of the provisions of
the PMLA and the Special Court can direct the accused to furnish
Bond in terms of Section 88 of the Cr.P.C. and may also grant on
sufficient cause, exemption from personal appearance under
Section 205 Cr.P.C. The Judgment of Tarsem Lal (Supra) was
followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Ketan
Sahu Vs. Enforcement Directorate bearing SLP (Cr.) No. 8325 of
2024 wherein vide order dated 29.07.2024, the interim order was
made absolute with observation that the Special Court may direct
the appellant/petitioner to furnish bond for appearance in
accordance with Section 88 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, on aforesaid
ground, it has been prayed to allow the present anticipatory bail
petition.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of opposite party/E.D. submits that once an accused appears
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30483 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
before the Special Court, he is deemed to be in its custody and as
such, the accused must apply for bail under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. However, on merit of the case, he submits that this
petitioner, in collusion with other officers/officials of Patna
Municipal Corporation, has violated the financial rule & regulation
of Patna Municipal Corporation like two-way communication,
street light, high-mast light and diesel pump-set for solid waste
management, construction of slaughter house, by allocation of
work to his favoured entity etc. and also caused revenue loss on
account of illegal statutory approval of maps for construction of
130 multi-storied apartments to the tune of Rs. 7,46,669/-. The
second major revenue loss has been caused on account of illegal
allotment of hoardings to the 5 advertisement agencies to the tune
of Rs. 40,38,133/-.
7. Learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate
relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. vs Union of India, reported in 2022
SCC OnLine SC 929 and has also relied upon a decision of Orissa
High Court in the case of Mohd. Arif vs Directorate of
Enforcement, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Ori 544. However,
learned counsel for the opposite party, in paragraph - 4 of the
counter affidavit, submits that in the light of judgment passed by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30483 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal's case (supra), the present
anticipatory bail of petitioner be disposed of.
8. Heard the submissions so advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on
record. This Court is in agreement with the submission advanced
by learned counsel for the petitioner that once cognizance is taken
of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, the
Special Court cannot exercise the power of arrest of the accused
shown in the complaint and accordingly, the order impugned i.e.
order dated 19.07.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge /Special
Judge (PMLA), Patna in Special Trial (PMLA) Case No. 08 of
2022, arising out of ECIR/19/Pat/2012 dated 06.12.2012, is,
hereby, set aside, in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Tarsem Lal (supra) and learned Special Court
(PMLA), Patna is directed to consider the application of petitioner
afresh and dispose of the same in the light of observation made by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 23 & 25 of the case of
Tarsem Lal (supra) with following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall appear before the
concerned Special Court within one month from the
date of receipt / production of copy of this order and
shall file an undertaking before the Special Court that
he shall regularly and punctually appear before the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30483 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
Special Court on the dates fixed unless his appearance
is specifically exempted by the exercise of powers
under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C.; and
(ii) The petitioner shall furnish bond in
accordance with Section 88 of the Cr.P.C. to the
satisfaction of the Special Court within one month
from the date of receipt / production of copy of this
order.
9. With above observation and direction, this petition is
allowed.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Anay
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 14.05.2025
Transmission Date 14.05.2025
