JYOTISH CHANDRA SAHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after submission of the charge sheet, when anticipatory bail application was filed by the petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was holding the post of Finance and Accounts Officer, C.M.R.I, Dhanbad it was rejected but the petitioner has been renewing his prayer for bail in a changed situation that now the prosecuting agency is proceeding with the trial after getting the charge framed and that the petitioner has now retired and that almost all other accused persons have been admitted to anticipatory bail.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I, it does appear that the petitioner's anticipatory bail was rejected taking into account that not only Rupak Choudhary has named this petitioner as the person who had received commission but Prabin Kumar Roy has also made statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that this petitioner had received the commission whereas other persons namely, Swadesh Kumar Chauliya and Mrinal Kanti Chakraborty had never been stated by the said Pravin Kumar Roy to have received commission. Leaned counsel by placing statement of Pravin Kumar Roy submits that it is true that he has not stated the name of other persons except the petitioner who had received commission but he has stated that other persons had received commission through this 13 petitioner and therefore, it is evidently clear that all the persons who have been admitted to bail had received commission indirectly.