Abused Power Of His Post And Position: Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Regular Bail Plea In ACB Khas Mahal Land Scam Under Prevention Of Corruption Act.
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Jharkhand Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi on Tuesday (January 6, 2026) rejected a regular bail plea filed by a former Hazaribagh Deputy Commissioner and suspended IAS officer booked by the Anti-Corruption Bureau in an alleged land-scam case. The court declined to enlarge the accused on bail, noting that the allegations at this stage concern irregular renewal and transfer of Khas Mahal land, including changes in recorded beneficiaries and subsequent transfers to multiple private purchasers through power-of-attorney holders. The order also recorded apprehensions that release could lead to interference with witnesses or documentary material.
The case concerns a petition seeking regular bail filed by a former Deputy Commissioner who was arraigned as an accused in a vigilance case registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau in relation to alleged illegal transactions involving Khas Mahal land. The prosecution alleged that during the petitioner’s tenure as Deputy Commissioner, renewal and subsequent transfer of government land were facilitated in favour of private individuals through power of attorney holders. It was alleged that the land originally settled in the name of a deity was renewed in favour of sevayats and thereafter transferred to multiple purchasers.
The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, was not named in the FIR initially, and had merely forwarded proposals placed before him in accordance with established procedure. It was further argued that all actions relating to renewal and transfer of land were undertaken only after approval of the State Government. The petitioner denied having passed any order deleting entries or granting approvals independently.
The Anti-Corruption Bureau opposed the bail plea, asserting that the petitioner had played an active role in recommending renewal and transfer of Khas Mahal land, abused his official position, and facilitated illegal transactions involving large extents of government land. Reliance was placed on documentary records, statements of purchasers recorded during investigation, and financial transactions allegedly linked to the petitioner’s close relatives.
The Court, after considering the submissions and perusing the case diary, noted the historical background of the land in question and the manner in which renewal and transfers were affected. The Court recorded that “various documents annexed with the petition… clearly suggests that the petitioner was instrumental in moving the file and recommending to the Government for approval of transfer.”
Referring to witness statements, the Court observed that “the statement of the purchasers under section 180 of BNSS… have stated that Vijay Pratap Singh and Sudhir Kumar Singh used to visit the office of the Deputy Commissioner when the petitioner was posted as Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh.” The Court further noted that “there are sufficient materials against the petitioner to suggest that the petitioner was involved in all these transactions through different persons.”
The Court detailed the statutory and administrative role of a Deputy Commissioner, recording that “the petitioner was heading the post of Deputy Commissioner at the relevant time and all these transactions have taken place.” It further observed that the petitioner, being a senior IAS officer, exercised extensive administrative control over land records and subordinate officials.
On the issue of bail jurisprudence, the Court recorded settled principles governing grant of bail in non-bailable offences and noted that “economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.” The Court also took note of alleged financial transactions, observing that “Rupees 3.16 crores in cash has been deposited in the account of Brahmastra Education Private Limited of which… the wife of the petitioner… are the directors.”
Addressing apprehensions of tampering, the Court recorded that “the supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner… the said orders are not certified copy… which clearly suggests that petitioner can tamper with the evidence.” The Court found this to fortify the apprehension expressed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau.
After evaluating the overall materials and the role attributed to the petitioner, the Court held that “considering the overall materials on record and the role attributed to this petitioner, the gravity and seriousness of the offence committed by the petitioner… he can tamper with the evidence if he is granted regular bail. 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 present bail application fails and is hereby rejected at this stage” and “pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Senior Advocate; Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate; Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate; Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate; Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate
Case Title: Vinay Kumar Choubey v. State of Jharkhand (ACB)
Neutral Citation: 2026: JHHC:99
Case Number: B.A. No. 9602 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
