Ram Krishan Raman @ Ram Krishna Raman V. Union of India through CBI

A.B.A./6889/2022

AI Insights

Ram Krishan Raman sought anticipatory bail from the High Court of Jharkhand, apprehending his arrest in connection with a case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case alleged that he possessed 73% more assets than his known sources of income during the period from March 1, 2007, to January 16, 2019. However, this percentage was later reduced to 20% following an investigation. The petitioner argued that the investigating officer did not consider specific explanations and evidence provided, including income from the sale of shares and other sources. The CBI opposed the bail application, acknowledging a 20.01% disproportionate asset calculation. The court, after considering the submissions and the nature of the allegations, granted anticipatory bail.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 801555 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Krishnanand Agnihotri Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) 1 SCC 816
• Laws Referred To: Prevention of Corruption Act (Amendment), 2018, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR; CHANDNA KUMARI
• Assessee Lawyers: INDRAJIT SINHA; AJAY SAH
• Keywords: Anticipatory bail; CBI; Disproportionate assets; Income Tax Return; Investigation
• Section: 13(2); 13(1)(b); 438(2); 41A

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 6889 of 2022 ----- Ram Krishan Raman @ Ram Krishna Raman … …. Petitioner Versus Union of India through CBI … …. Opp. Party ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioner : M/s Indrajit Sinha & Ajay Kr. Sah, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar, Addl.S.G.I. Ms. Chandna Kumari, Advocate ----- Oral Order 07 / Dated : 28.11.2022 Apprehending his arrest, petitioner- Ram Krishan Raman @ Ram Krishna Raman has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with R.C. Case No. 06(A)/2019(D) registered under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Amendment), 2018. Heard the parties. It is submitted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in the FIR it is alleged that the petitioner was having 73% assets more than his known source of income which he acquired during the check period from 01.03.2007 to 16.01.2019. However, after investigation the percentage of disproportionate assets has been reduced from 73% to 20% for a total sum of Rs.43,51,590.56. With regard to this, it is submitted that there is specific explanation of the petitioner which has not been considered by the Investigating Officer as set out in the Statement A, B, C and D of the application. With regard to incoming accruing from the sale of share of companies it is submitted that the amount received by sale of shares in private company is to the tune of Rs. 2,40,000/-. These shares were acquired before the check period and has been reflected in the income tax return filed for the year 2002-03 filed at the balance sheet which shows that these shares has been annexed at page 124. The net income during the check period amount to Rs.1,70,00,107/- but the CBI has considered only Rs.1,66,47,980.15. In support of this contention Form- 16 of the income tax return issued by the employer has been filed for the assessment years 2007-08 and the said years have been annexed which comes to Rs.1,70,00,107/-. Apart from the above, the honorarium that has been received by the petitioner from the lectures delivered at different places comes to Rs. 72,000/- Apart from this, daily allowances of Rs.3,42,015/- from the BCCL was reflected at paragraph-40 of the Statement. Statement-C has not been computed. It is submitted that there has been gross error in calculation of total gold assets at the end of checking period. The petitioner had gold valued at Rs.3,32,78.06 which has been reflected in the income tax return also and of the year 2009 the value of the gold with this amount was about 432 grams but the CBI has computed the value of gold as per the current market rate which was part of gift and was gifted to his wife at the time of marriage and was also reflected by the income tax return. After computing these figures, percentage of assets more than known source of income comes around 11% which cannot be said to be disproportionate. Reliance in this regard has been placed on (1977) 1 SCC 816 (Krishnanand Agnihotri Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) in which conviction was set aside. Investigation has been completed and the petitioner has fully co-operated with the investigating agency and there is no prospect of his absconding after his enlarge on bail. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Addl. S.G.I. appearing for the CBI, has vehemently opposed the anticipatory application. He has submitted that even in the calculation of assets in the memo of application 20.01% disproportionate assets has been admitted to be true. Considering the submissions of learned counsel and the fact as discussed above, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of two weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner named above shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. The petitioner will cooperate in the investigation and will appear on notice under Section 41A of Cr. P.C. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit/ AKT "