Sita Soren V. Union of India through C.B.I.

A.B.A./3529/2013

AI Insights

The case involves Sita Soren, accused under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, related to bribery and corruption during elections. The Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) presented evidence including witness testimonies and bank statements, alleging that Sita Soren received substantial amounts of money for electoral favors. The defense argued that the evidence was insufficient and improperly recorded, highlighting the lack of direct financial transactions to the petitioner or her relatives. The C.B.I. countered with testimonies and the petitioner's alleged refusal to return the money post-election. The court found the evidence against the petitioner substantial enough to warrant denial of bail.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 802051 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Code of Criminal Procedure
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MD KHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: INDRAJIT SINHA
• Keywords: Anticipatory bail; Bribery; Corruption; Election; Witness testimony; Criminal charge
• Section: 13(2); 13(1)(d); 164; 120B; 171E

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ---- A.B.A. No. 3529 of 2013 ----- Sita Soren ... Petitioner. Versus Union of India through C.B.I. .... Opposite Parties. --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA --- For the Petitioner : M/s. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate. For the C.B.I. : Mr.Md.Mokhtar Khan, ASGI ----- 12/20.02.2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the C.B.I.. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 171E, 120B I.P.C. and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that C.B.I has examined witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C., namely, Jaykant Kumar, Vikas Kumar, Badal Chandra Mahato and Pramod Pandey @ Mantu who have named this petitioner; that the statement of these witnesses is not recorded in accordance to the provisions of law as it has not been verified by the Magistrate; that the driver has merely stated that as per rumours the bag contained money but he did not know whether it contained money; that from the Bank statement of Sita Soren's father it is evident that the alleged bribe money said to be deposited in the Account is not substantiated; that the petitioner is a widow and the fees of her three daughters are being paid by her sister and father and by her; that the petitioner is an Income Tax payee as per Annexure-4; that the C.B.I has not brought forward any material witness to show that the alleged amount was deposited either in the account of the petitioner or in the account of the petitioner's father or sister. It is further submitted that C.B.I has filed final report (Annexure-6) from which it is clear that the sufficient material could not be gathered as far as other accused are concerned and if that is the parameter then it is applicable to this petitioner also as prior to the election, during the election and after lodging of the F.I.R the alleged money has not been traced to the account of the petitioner or her relatives. It is also submitted that the driver has stated that the bag was kept in the dickey of the vehicle and in the morning it was placed in the Bolero vehicle of her father which shows that the bag did not contain money because no prudent person would have allowed such huge amount of money to remain in the dickey of the vehicle for the whole night. It is also submitted that it is a usual practice that the candidates contesting election contact the M.L.As and this is not a circumstance to fasten the criminal charge against the petitioner for taking money for casting vote in favour of a candidate. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per the evidence of the witnesses in the charge-sheet recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., namely, Jaykant Kumar, Vikash Kumar, Badal Chandra Mahto, Pramod Kumar Pandey @ Mantu Pandey who have stated that this petitioner had gone to Hotel Radisson Blue to meet R.K.Agarwal, who is an industrialist from Jamshedpur and R.K.Agarwal had given Rs.50.00 lakhs in the night of 18.03.2012 to the petitioner at the residence of M.L.A, Mathura Mahto and the bag was subsequently handed over to Rajendra Mondal and on 30.03.2012 the petitioner was given Rs.1.00 Crore in a bag at Hotel Radisson Blue and the said bag was placed in the Bolero of the petitioner's father on the next morning. It is also submitted that said R.K.Agarwal, after the election, started demanding money from the petitioner and other M.L.As as they had not voted for him. It is further submitted that on Agarwal's request, the witnesses conveyed the message to this petitioner regarding return of the alleged money amounting to rupees one and half crores but this petitioner refused to return the money saying she is ready to go to jail and shall spend the money in defending the case. In view of the materials on record the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence is made out. The petitioner has been evading arrest and has not been co-operating in the investigation and considering the gravity of charge this is not a fit case for granting bail. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. She is directed to surrender in the court below in connection with RC Case NO.02(S)/2012-AHD-R pending in the court of Special Judge, C.B.I, Ranchi within a period of seven days from the date of this order. (Amitav K. Gupta, J.) Biswas "