- (1.) WHEN huge amount of Rs.2,14,88,000/- was seized from a vehicle bearing registration no.JH-05-AC-2185, Deputy Director (Investigation), Income Tax Department, Ranchi informed about it to the Officer-in-Charge of Namkum Police Station for taking necessary action. Upon it, a case was registered as Namkum P.S. case no.58 of 2012 under Sections 171(F)/188 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Sudhanshu Tripathy, representative of Shah Sponge Limited and others. Meanwhile, Public Interest Litigation bearing W.P (PIL) No.1801 of 2012 and W.P.(PIL) No.1802 of 2012 was filed before this Court highlighting malpractices being adopted by the candidates for the election of Rajya Sabha. This Court having found prima facie a grave case of involvement of money power, horse trading influencing voters, the members of the Legislative Assembly relating to process of election of council of Sates, directed the Election Commission to hand over the matter to the C.B.I. Accordingly, investigation of aforesaid Namkum Police Station Case was taken over by the C.B.I, who got it renumbered as R.C.02(S) of 2012-AHD-R.
(2.) IN course of investigation, statements of some of the persons were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, who disclosed the name of certain M.L.As to whom the petitioner had given money for casting votes in his favour. Thereupon a petition was filed on 20.4.2012 by the Investigating Officer before the Court stating therein that the petitioner and others seems to have committed offence punishable under Sections 7, 8, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and as such, prayer was made to issue search warrant. The prayer made by the C.B.I was allowed. In spite of such prayer being made, C.B.I did not do anything to get the case registered under Sections 7,8,12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. When notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued, petitioner being apprehensive that he would be arrested filed an anticipatory bail application, bearing A.B.A No.581 of 2013 before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi who transferred the case to the court of Special Judge,C.B.I, who having found the case being registered under Section 171(F)/188 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code rejected it as non-maintainable after making certain observation which is as follows : " The petitioner is not named in the FIR. Investigating Officer of this case has summoned the petitioner to appear before him on 5.4.2013 for the purpose of answering certain questions relating to case. From perusal of the order dated 20.4.2012, it does transpired that learned court below has anywhere held in its order that prima facie case under Sections 7,8,12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out, still the case is under Sections 171(F)/188 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code which is bailable in nature." Thereafter the petitioner surrendered before the Sub- divisional Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I, Ranchi on 9.4.2013 and filed an application for bail wherein prayer was made to admit the petitioner on bail as the offences alleged are bailable. However, submission was made on behalf of the C.B.I that though the petitioner is not named in the FIR but certain materials have been collected showing commission of the offences of the Indian Penal Code as well as Prevention of Corruption Act. The court having found that the offences under which FIR has been registered are bailable and also taking into account the observation made by the learned Special Judge are bailable and that the C.B.I has still not instituted the case for commission of the offences under Sections 7,8,12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act granted bail to the petitioner, vide its order dated 9.4.2013. On the very next day, i.e.10.4.2013, an application was filed for adding Sections 7,8,12,13 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the FIR earlier instituted which prayer was allowed. Thereafter an application was filed before the C.B.I under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner, who after hearing the parties, cancelled the bail, vide its order dated 7.5.2013 after holding that in spite of the case being registered under the bailable offences, the court should have taken into account the materials collected and placed before the court showing commission of the offences under Sections 7,8, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, notice of which had been taken by the Court while issuing search warrant against the petitioner.
(3.) THUS , it was held that the court has granted bail to the petitioner improperly. Hence, the bail was cancelled. It does appear that after the bail was cancelled, the petitioner was taken into custody. Being aggrieved with the said order cancelling bail, this application has been filed.;