Santosh Kumar @ Arjun V. The Union of India through CBI

A.B.A./10915/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Santosh Kumar @ Arjun, an Assistant Commandant in the C.R.P.F., who applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act). The charges stemmed from allegations of acquiring disproportionate assets amounting to Rs.50,47,947, which was claimed to be 43.86% of his known sources of income. The petitioner contested the calculations presented in the charge sheet, arguing that certain entries were erroneously included, leading to an inflated assessment of disproportionate assets. The prosecution, represented by the C.B.I., opposed the bail, emphasizing the economic nature of the offense and the public servant status of the petitioner, which posed a risk of absconding. However, the court granted anticipatory bail, considering the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation and the completion of the charge sheet.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 695311 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Satender Kumar Antil Versus C.B.I.; (2021) 10 SCC 773, Siddharth Vs. State of UP (2022) 1 SCC 676
• Laws Referred To: P.C. Act, Code of Criminal Procedure
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANIL; CHANDANA KUMARI; NITISH SARTHI
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT DAS
• Keywords: Anticipatory bail; Charge Sheet; Disproportionate assets; Economic offence; Public servant
• Section: 13(2); 13(1)(b); 438(2); 13(1)(e)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 10915 of 2022 ------ Santosh Kumar @ Arjun .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The Union of India through CBI .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate For the C.B.I. : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I. Ms. Chandana Kumari, A.C. to A.S.G.I. Mr. Nitish Parth Sarthi, A.C. to A.S.G.I. ------ Order No.10 / Dated 08.05.2023 The anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with R.C.10(A)/2019-R for the offence registered under Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(e) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) of the P.C. Act pending in the Court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII cum Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, is pressed into motion. The petitioner is Assistant Commandant in C.R.P.F. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and as per the prosecution case, the petitioner had acquired disproportionate asset of Rs.50,47,947/- which was 43.86% of his known source of his income. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that there has been computational error which is apparent from the charge sheet. The assessment at the beginning of check period as set out in Statement A i.e. on 01.04.2013 is not in dispute. With respect to entry at Serial No.9 of Statement B i.e. assets at the end of check period on 21.12.2019, it is submitted that flat was purchased on 04.06.2019 by taking of housing loan of Rs.35,00,000/- for total value of Rs.44,50,000/-. With regard to it, it is submitted that once the valuation of this flat has been shown as asset and the loan has been shown as income, it was error on part of the investigating agency to include the EMI of Rs.1,69,258/- at Serial No.27 in the expenditure of the petitioner as shown in Statement B. With respect to Serial No.10 of the assets at the end of check period, (Statement B), it is submitted that these items had total value of Rs.3,77,494/-, has also been shown in the expenditure at Serial Nos.7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 & 25 (Statement D). After removing these errors in computation, there will be no disproportionate asset as has been projected in the charge sheet. It is submitted that petitioner is officer in Armed Forces and there is no prospect of his absconding. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has co-operated with the investigation and charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, in view of radio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Versus C.B.I.; (2021) 10 SCC 773, Siddharth Vs. State of UP (2022) 1 SCC 676 Learned ASGI has opposed the bail petition. It is submitted that a total disproportionate of Rs.50,47,947/- has come after elaborate calculation in the charge sheet. The matter involves commission of economic offence, and the plea that has been raised can be considered only at the stage of trial. Petitioner is a public servant and there appears remote possibility of his absconding from trial. Investigation has been completed and charge-sheet submitted. Considering the submissions made, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within a period of two weeks and in the event of his arrest or surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court below, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and one of the bailors will be Income Tax payee. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit "