ARUN PATI TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This anticipatory bail application has been filed in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 09/2025 for the offence registered under Sections 61(2) read with Sections 318, 336, 340, 316/45 and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 7(c), 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, said to be pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, ACB, Ranchi.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the main accused and beneficiaries of this case have either been granted bail or default bail or anticipatory bail. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he is not a named accused and he is the Managing Director of CSMCL. CSMCL being a Government Organization, the opposite party could not have proceeded in absence of sanction in terms of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the P.C. Act) as amended.

(3.) The learned counsel submits that in Chhattisgarh, there was substantial collection of State Excise Revenue and therefore, the State of Jharkhand also started consulting the State of Chhattisgarh, so that a similar model or module could be adopted in the State of Jharkhand as well. In terms of negotiation between the State of Chhattisgarh and State of Jharkhand, it was agreed that CSMCL would be an advisor to JSBCL in the State of Jharkhand, so that the excise revenue can be increased in the State of Jharkhand as well.