'Abused Power Of His Post': Jharkhand High Court Denies Bail To Suspended IAS Officer Vinay Kumar Choubey In Land Scam Case

The Jharkhand High Court on Tuesday (January 6) rejected the bail application filed by former Hazaribagh Deputy Commissioner (DC) and suspended IAS officer Vinay Kumar Choubey booked by the Anti Corruption Bureau an alleged land scam case.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a regular bail application filed by the petitioner, who was arraigned as an accused in an FIR registered under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 1988.

The allegation against Choubey is that when he was Deputy Commissioner of Hazaribagh between 2008-2010 he had recommended the approval of transfer of khas mahal (government owned land) land to certain persons. The ACB alleged that in course of investigation it was revealed that that approximately 5000 acres of land in the district of Hazaribagh have been illegally transacted and the said lands in fact were belonging to and/or Forest land, Gair Majaruwa Aam, Sarkari Khas Mahal, Kesher-e-hind, Lakheraj, Trust lands etc. It was contended by ACB that the entire land scams were done during the tenure of the petitioner, the then Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh

The court said:

"...coming to the facts of the present case it transpires that the petitioner while working as Deputy Commissioner and has done various irregularities by allotting various government lands to the interested persons. The petitioner has shown undue favour to the persons in whose favour the land was transferred. The petitioner has abused the power of his post and position".

The petitioner argued that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. It was submitted that he was not named as an accused in the FIR and was subsequently added without any direct involvement being attributed to him. He further contended that the case arose solely because he had served as the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. According to the petitioner, the proceedings stemmed from a preliminary enquiry (No. 24 of 2015) conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on a complaint made nearly ten years ago by a journalist, Tripurari Singh.

Opposing the bail application, the State submitted that the petitioner had approved the renewal of leases through power of attorney holders and was deeply involved in transactions relating to Khas Mahal land. The prosecution relied on witness statements, including those of two out of twenty-three persons in whose favour subsequent transfers of Khas Mahal land were made. These witnesses stated that through power of attorney holders Vijay Pratap Singh and Sudhir Pratap Singh, they met the petitioner, who personally assured them that the lease could be easily transferred in their names.

The State further contended that the petitioner, being a senior IAS officer and custodian of government land records, exercised extensive administrative control over subordinate officials in the district administration, revenue, and registration departments. It was argued that there was a genuine apprehension that if granted bail, the petitioner could influence witnesses and tamper with documentary evidence.

The High Court noted that sufficient material was available to suggest the petitioner's involvement in the transactions through intermediaries. It said that an IAS officer serving as District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner functions as the government's representative in the district and exercises supervisory control over the district administration.

"Thus, considering the overall materials on record and the role attributed to this petitioner, the gravity and seriousness of the offence committed by the petitioner as he is sitting over the highest post of the Government, he can tamper with the evidence if he is granted regular bail. Further in course of argument it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Anti Corruption Bureau that Sevayats are not cooperating in the investigation being done by the ACB and investigating against Sevayats is pending. It has been noticed that in recent times there was increase in socio-economic offences in the country. These are the offences which are solely committed for personal gains. These crimes are affecting every part of the country's economic structure and wrecking the people's faith in the system. In the following circumstances, if the person is very influential and there is every chance to mislead the case, in such cases bail should not be granted," the court added.

Thus, considering the overall materials on record, the role attributed to the petitioner, and the gravity and seriousness of the offences alleged, the Court noted that the petitioner, having occupied one of the highest posts in the government, was in a position to tamper with the evidence if granted regular bail.

The bail plea was dismissed.

Case Title: Vinay Kumar Choubey v. State of Jharkhand

Case Number: B.A. No. 9602 of 2025

Appearance: Mr. R. S. Mazumdar and Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy appeared for the Petitioner. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Ms. Shruti Shekhar, and Mr. Nillohit Choubey appeared for the Respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order