- (1.) BOTH the anticipatory bail applications arose from same first information report, thus, are heard together and disposed of by this order. Heard Sri R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in both the cases and Md. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel for the C.B.I.
(2.) C .B.I. has instituted a first information report on the basis of a letter issued by Registrar General of this Court. It is alleged that in Ranchi more than 1574 multi-storied buildings have been constructed without proper sanctioning of map by the RRDA, which is violative of Sections 52 & 55 of the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, 2001 and Clause 15 (2) of the bye-laws framed thereunder in the year 2002. Accordingly, C.B.I. took investigation. It appears that in course of investigation, C.B.I. inspected 'Nandan Apartment', constructed by petitioners of A.B.A. No. 901 of 2013, in Kali Babu Street and found that the said building was constructed against the bye-laws framed by Ranchi Regional Development Authority. It is also alleged that the aid building was not only against the bye-laws framed by RRDA, rather the same is against the provisions of Patna Planning Standards & Building Bye-laws, 1981. It is further alleged that the petitioner of A.B.A. No. 2218 of 2013 in connivance with petitioners of A.B.A. No. 901 of 2013 had passed map against the bye-laws mentioned above with some ulterior motive and cheated persons residing in Apartment. Accordingly, charge sheet submitted by the C.B.I. It is submitted by Sri R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, that from perusal of first information report, it is clear that this Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 1531 of 2011 has authorized C.B.I. to investigate cases relating to construction of building for which map sanctioned by RRDA in the last 10 years from the date of first information report. It is submitted that the map for construction of the present building was sanctioned in the year 2000, thus, C.B.I. has no jurisdiction to investigate the present case. It is further submitted that in the instant case map has been sanctioned as per the provisions of Patna Planning Standards & Building Bye-laws, 1981 and there is no illegality in the same. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioners are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.
(3.) MD . Mokhtar Khan appearing for the C.B.I. submits that in view of the direction of this Court, C.B.I. has decided to investigate only those building, plans of the multi-storied apartments (residential and commercial), which are sanctioned after the year 2000. It is further submitted that admittedly map of the present building sanctioned in the year 2000. Thus, it is within the jurisdiction of C.B.I. to investigate the irregularities. It is further submitted that as per bye-laws framed by Patna Regional Development Authority if the hight of the building is more than 15 metres then, it must face minimum 12 metres existing road. It is submitted that the hight of present building is about 26 metres. Thus, as per the bye-laws framed by Patna Regional Development Authority, it must face a existing road which is 12 metres wide. In the instant case, the building is facing a existing road which is 8 metres wide. Thus, the map has been sanctioned against the bye-laws.;