Former Ranchi Deputy Commissioner's Bail Plea Rejected By Jharkhand High Court In Army Land Sale Case

The Jharkhand High Court last week rejected a bail petition of former Ranchi Deputy Commissioner, Chhavi Ranjan in the army land sale case. The former Deputy Commissioner had moved the high court seeking his release on the grounds of non-submission of the charge sheet within the stipulated time.However, the court held that there was no irregularity on the part of the investigating agency in concluding the probe, as the charge sheet had already been filed, and hence, there was no valid ground for bail based on this argument.Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “Coming to the case in hand, what has been discussed hereinabove, it appears that the materials which has come in the first ECIR, the investigation in the first case is complete and the learned court has taken the cognizance on 19.06.2023. Thus, it cannot be said that the investigation is still pending so far as ECIR/18/2022 is concerned.”“The another ECIR, being ECIR/10/2023 is the subject matter of other properties in which the final form has been submitted on 01.09.2023. The Court finds that it cannot be said, in the aforesaid facts, that charge sheet was not submitted within the stipulated period, and in view of that, Sub-Section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. is not available to the petitioner,” Justice Dwivedi added.As per the factual matrix of the case, the petitioner was arrested on May 4, 2023, and remanded on May 5, 2023. The charges stemmed from a fraudulent property deal involving one Pradip Bagchi, registered under the PMLA Act. The petitioner, along with others, allegedly had acquired a valuable property worth crores for only Rs. 25 lakhs, exploiting Bagchi's false ownership. The petitioner had allegedly misused his official position in this transaction. The court acknowledged the case on June 19, 2023, and the petitioner's request for default bail on July 4, 2023, was denied on July 10, 2023. However, investigations for multiple properties are ongoing under the PMLA Act.The Court observed, “Further in view of the above discussion made hereinabove, the Court finds that the materials which are on the record disclosed that it was a final report. Further merely because certain facets of the matter called for further investigation it does not lead to a conclusion that final report is anything other than a final report. The petitioner is arrested on 04.05.2023 and after completion of the investigation, the prosecution report was filed on 12.06.2023 and, therefore, Sub-Section (2) of Section 167 of Cr.P.C stood fully complied with the facts of the present case.”“A charge sheet is a final report within the meaning of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. It is filed so as to enable the court concerned to apply the mind as to whether the cognizance of the offence thereupon should be taken or not? The report is ordinarily filed in the form prescribed therefore,” the Court added.The Court further observed that in the first Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) where the petitioner was in jail custody, the investigation had already been completed.Expounding on Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Court noted that the Enforcement Directorate could continue with subsequent complaints and further investigation even after the final report had been submitted.The Court also noted that the materials from the first ECIR indicated that the investigation in the initial case was finalized, and the court had taken cognizance on June 19, 2023, and therefore, it could not be argued that the investigation was still pending concerning ECIR/18/2022.Regarding another ECIR, ECIR/10/2023, which concerned other properties and had its final report submitted on September 1, 2023, the Court found that it couldn't be claimed that the charge sheet wasn't filed within the stipulated time. Consequently, the Court concluded that Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was not applicable to the petitioner.The Court clarified that the judgments cited by the petitioner's counsel were distinguishable, as they related to cases where the investigation was incomplete. Considering the given facts, reasons and analysis, the Court came to the conclusion that this was not a case to grant default bail to the petitioner under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C, and accordingly dismissed the petition.Counsel/s For the Petitioner :- Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Choudhary, Advocate Counsel/s For Enforcement Directorate[E.D]:- Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I. Ms. Chandana Kumari, A.C to A.S.G.I.LL Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 58Case Title: Chhavi Ranjan vs Union of India Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 2578 of 2023Click Here To Read / Download Judgement

Former Ranchi Deputy Commissioner's Bail Plea Rejected By Jharkhand High Court In Army Land Sale Case

Bhavya Singh

Tags