Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 357
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 891 of 2026)
ANOSH EKKA ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE THROUGH CENTRAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant herein, a former Minister in the
State of Jharkhand has preferred the instant appeal
th
against order dated 18 December, 2025 passed by
1
the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in I.A. No.
13857 of 2025 arising out of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.
850 of 2025, whereby the High Court rejected the
appellant’s application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail during pendency of the appeal.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.04.13
17:03:15 IST
Reason:
1
Hereinafter referred as “High Court”
1
4. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is
that an FIR being Vigilance Bureau P.S. Case No. 26
of 2008 came to be registered on the basis of a
complaint filed by one Kumar Binod alleging that the
appellant and another Minister, namely, Hari Narain
Rai, had acquired assets disproportionate to their
known sources of income. Pursuant to order dated
th
4 August, 2010 passed by the High Court in WP
(PIL) Nos. 4700 of 2008 and 2222 of 2009, the
investigation was assigned to Central Bureau of
Investigation.
5. It is alleged that as against a pre-check asset of
Rs. 10,48,827/-, the appellant amassed assets worth
approximately Rs. 57.01 crores. These assets include
land in and around Ranchi and a palatial bungalow.
It is further alleged that after becoming a Minister,
the appellant floated construction companies and got
them registered with the Rural Works Department in
order to legalise his illegally acquired wealth.
6. It is also alleged that the appellant misused his
position to illegally acquire large tracts of tribal lands
in violation of the provisions of the Chota Nagpur
2
2
Tenancy Act, 1908 . The transactions were made in
the name of his wife, Mrs. Menon Ekka, by furnishing
false residential addresses and submitting false
affidavits. The investigation further revealed that
such illegal transactions were orchestrated in
connivance with public officials including the Land
Reforms Deputy Collector and Circle Office staff, who
facilitated illegal transfers of tribal lands despite
statutory prohibitions.
7. It is further alleged that the appellant floated
firms such as M/s Mahamaya Construction and M/s
Ekka Construction Pvt. Ltd., in which his wife was
the major shareholder, and later got these firms
registered as Class-I contractors despite not fulfilling
the eligibility criteria. These firms were awarded
lucrative government contracts by departments
which were under the direct control of the appellant,
thereby conferring undue pecuniary advantage.
8. Upon completion of investigation, the CBI
th
submitted a chargesheet dated 11 December, 2012
against the appellant and other accused persons for
offences punishable under Sections 120B, 193 and
2
Hereinafter referred as “CNT Act”
3
3
420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections
13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
4
Corruption Act, 1988 , on the basis of which the
appellant was put to trial in R.C. Case No.
04(A)/2010-AHD-R(B) The appellant was ultimately
held guilty for offences punishable under Section
120B read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988,
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act,
1988 and Section 120B read with Section 193 IPC.
9. Be that as it may, the appeal against the said
conviction is still pending consideration before the
High Court of Jharkhand. The sentence awarded to
the appellant in the said case was suspended by this
th
Court and he was granted bail order dated 28
vide
April, 2023 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 5004 of 2023.
10. The CBI thereafter submitted a separate charge-
sheet leading to the institution of R.C. Case No.
04(A)/2010-AHD-R(C), out of which the present
proceedings arise. In the said case, the appellant was
tried and convicted by the learned trial Court
vide
th
judgment dated 29 August, 2025 for offences
punishable under Section 120B read with Section
3
For short, “IPC”
4
Hereinafter referred as “PC Act, 1988”
4
13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988, Section 13(2) read with
Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 and Section 120B
th
read with Section 193 IPC, and vide order dated 30
August, 2025, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of seven years each for the offences
under the PC Act, 1988 along with fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- each, and rigorous imprisonment of
two years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence
under Section 120B read with Section 193 IPC, with
all sentences directed to run concurrently.
11. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 850 of 2025, which is
pending consideration before the High Court. The
application for suspension of sentence filed therein
th
came to be rejected by order dated 18 December,
2025, and being aggrieved of such rejection, the
appellant has approached this Court by way of the
present appeal by special leave.
12. Shri Siddharth Dave, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant, contended that the land
in question has already been seized by the
Enforcement Directorate. Furthermore,
properties/assets of the appellant valuing
approximately Rs. 18 crores stand attached and
5
seized under orders passed by the adjudicating
authority in proceedings initiated by the Enforcement
Directorate.
13. He submitted that two separate chargesheets
have been filed by splitting the original Vigilance P.S.
Case No. 26 of 2008, though the allegations pertain
to the same check period, same set of transactions
and alleged acquisition of disproportionate assets by
indulging in criminal misconduct during the self-
same period. It was pointed out that even in the
earlier trial, the appellant was alleged to have
acquired properties worth approximately Rs. 57.01
crores in the name of his wife, Mrs. Menon Ekka,
including properties at serial nos. 1 to 15, and that
the very same properties, as reflected in paragraphs
3 and 4 of the trial Court judgment, have again been
made the subject matter of prosecution in the split
chargesheet. The same sets of properties have been
referred to in both R.C. Case No. 04(A)/2010-AHD-
R(B) and the present case, i.e., R.C. Case No.
04(A)/2010-AHD-R(C), thereby indicating that both
prosecutions arise out of overlapping set of identical
allegations.
6
14. It was further urged that the appellant has
already undergone imprisonment for a period of
nearly four years in the earlier case. In the present
case also, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of seven years each under Sections
120-B read with 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) read with
13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 along with two years’
rigorous imprisonment under Section 120-B read
with Section 193 IPC, which, according to the
appellant, tantamounts to a dual punishment for the
same set of allegations thereby being in the teeth of
right against double jeopardy as guaranteed under
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
15. Shri Dave also pointed out that the tribal lands
involved in the case have already been ordered to be
confiscated by the Special Court under the PMLA vide
st
judgment dated 21 March, 2020. The appellant and
his family members undertake to extend full
cooperation in restoring the land to its original
status. It was contended that there is no likelihood of
the appeal being heard in the near future and,
considering that the maximum sentence awarded is
seven years, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on
bail during the pendency of the appeal.
7
16. Per contra , Shri Davinder Pal Singh, learned
Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
respondent-CBI, vehemently opposed the
submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. He
submitted that the appellant, while holding the
responsible public office of a Minister in the State of
Jharkhand, misused his official position and
indulged in extended acts of criminal misconduct
thereby amassing assets grossly disproportionate to
his known sources of income. He contended that the
allegations against the appellant are grave in nature
and, therefore, he does not deserve the indulgence of
bail.
17. However, referring to the reply to additional
queries made by this Court, Shri Singh conceded that
substantial assets of the appellant valuing nearly
Rs.18 crores have already been attached, and such
attachment stands confirmed by the adjudicating
authority. He also submitted that the tribal land in
question has been confiscated. It was, however,
pointed out that till date, no steps have been taken
by the State Government for cancellation of the sale
deeds and reversion of the tribal land in terms of the
provisions of the CNT Act.
8
18. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone
through the impugned judgment.
19. A perusal of the material available on record
would indicate that two split charge-sheets were filed
against the appellant arising from Vigilance P.S. Case
No. 26 of 2008, leading to the institution of R.C. Case
No. 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(B) and R.C. Case No.
04(A)/2010-AHD-R(C). Many of the allegations in the
present case and the earlier case appear to be
overlapping. In the previous case, the appellant had
remained in custody for more than 4 years,
whereafter, this Court suspended the sentences
awarded to the appellant and released him on bail.
20. A fervent contention has been raised on behalf
of the appellant that two separate prosecutions were
impermissible because the allegations in both the
cases are overlapping. This aspect of the case would
have to be gone into by the High Court while deciding
the pending appeals. However, the fact remains that
the appellant has undergone custodial incarceration
of more than 10 months in the present case as well.
The sentence awarded to the appellant in the other
case involving allegations of acquisition of
9
disproportionate assets, having been suspended by
this Court, we are inclined to grant bail to the
appellant in the present case also.
21. Accordingly, we direct that the appellant shall
be released on bail by suspending the substantive
sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court,
subject to the condition that the appellant files an
undertaking before the trial Court within 7 days of
his release, stating that he shall assist in the process
of restoration of the tribal land to its original status
as and when required. The release of the appellant on
bail shall further be subject to such other terms and
conditions as the trial Court may deem fit to impose
and upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties to the
satisfaction of the trial Court.
22. The impugned order is accordingly set aside.
23. The appeal is allowed in these terms.
24. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 13, 2026.
10
11
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 891 of 2026)
ANOSH EKKA ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE THROUGH CENTRAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant herein, a former Minister in the
State of Jharkhand has preferred the instant appeal
th
against order dated 18 December, 2025 passed by
1
the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in I.A. No.
13857 of 2025 arising out of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.
850 of 2025, whereby the High Court rejected the
appellant’s application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail during pendency of the appeal.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.04.13
17:03:15 IST
Reason:
1
Hereinafter referred as “High Court”
1
4. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is
that an FIR being Vigilance Bureau P.S. Case No. 26
of 2008 came to be registered on the basis of a
complaint filed by one Kumar Binod alleging that the
appellant and another Minister, namely, Hari Narain
Rai, had acquired assets disproportionate to their
known sources of income. Pursuant to order dated
th
4 August, 2010 passed by the High Court in WP
(PIL) Nos. 4700 of 2008 and 2222 of 2009, the
investigation was assigned to Central Bureau of
Investigation.
5. It is alleged that as against a pre-check asset of
Rs. 10,48,827/-, the appellant amassed assets worth
approximately Rs. 57.01 crores. These assets include
land in and around Ranchi and a palatial bungalow.
It is further alleged that after becoming a Minister,
the appellant floated construction companies and got
them registered with the Rural Works Department in
order to legalise his illegally acquired wealth.
6. It is also alleged that the appellant misused his
position to illegally acquire large tracts of tribal lands
in violation of the provisions of the Chota Nagpur
2
2
Tenancy Act, 1908 . The transactions were made in
the name of his wife, Mrs. Menon Ekka, by furnishing
false residential addresses and submitting false
affidavits. The investigation further revealed that
such illegal transactions were orchestrated in
connivance with public officials including the Land
Reforms Deputy Collector and Circle Office staff, who
facilitated illegal transfers of tribal lands despite
statutory prohibitions.
7. It is further alleged that the appellant floated
firms such as M/s Mahamaya Construction and M/s
Ekka Construction Pvt. Ltd., in which his wife was
the major shareholder, and later got these firms
registered as Class-I contractors despite not fulfilling
the eligibility criteria. These firms were awarded
lucrative government contracts by departments
which were under the direct control of the appellant,
thereby conferring undue pecuniary advantage.
8. Upon completion of investigation, the CBI
th
submitted a chargesheet dated 11 December, 2012
against the appellant and other accused persons for
offences punishable under Sections 120B, 193 and
2
Hereinafter referred as “CNT Act”
3
3
420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections
13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
4
Corruption Act, 1988 , on the basis of which the
appellant was put to trial in R.C. Case No.
04(A)/2010-AHD-R(B) The appellant was ultimately
held guilty for offences punishable under Section
120B read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988,
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act,
1988 and Section 120B read with Section 193 IPC.
9. Be that as it may, the appeal against the said
conviction is still pending consideration before the
High Court of Jharkhand. The sentence awarded to
the appellant in the said case was suspended by this
th
Court and he was granted bail order dated 28
vide
April, 2023 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 5004 of 2023.
10. The CBI thereafter submitted a separate charge-
sheet leading to the institution of R.C. Case No.
04(A)/2010-AHD-R(C), out of which the present
proceedings arise. In the said case, the appellant was
tried and convicted by the learned trial Court
vide
th
judgment dated 29 August, 2025 for offences
punishable under Section 120B read with Section
3
For short, “IPC”
4
Hereinafter referred as “PC Act, 1988”
4
13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988, Section 13(2) read with
Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 and Section 120B
th
read with Section 193 IPC, and vide order dated 30
August, 2025, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of seven years each for the offences
under the PC Act, 1988 along with fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- each, and rigorous imprisonment of
two years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence
under Section 120B read with Section 193 IPC, with
all sentences directed to run concurrently.
11. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 850 of 2025, which is
pending consideration before the High Court. The
application for suspension of sentence filed therein
th
came to be rejected by order dated 18 December,
2025, and being aggrieved of such rejection, the
appellant has approached this Court by way of the
present appeal by special leave.
12. Shri Siddharth Dave, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant, contended that the land
in question has already been seized by the
Enforcement Directorate. Furthermore,
properties/assets of the appellant valuing
approximately Rs. 18 crores stand attached and
5
seized under orders passed by the adjudicating
authority in proceedings initiated by the Enforcement
Directorate.
13. He submitted that two separate chargesheets
have been filed by splitting the original Vigilance P.S.
Case No. 26 of 2008, though the allegations pertain
to the same check period, same set of transactions
and alleged acquisition of disproportionate assets by
indulging in criminal misconduct during the self-
same period. It was pointed out that even in the
earlier trial, the appellant was alleged to have
acquired properties worth approximately Rs. 57.01
crores in the name of his wife, Mrs. Menon Ekka,
including properties at serial nos. 1 to 15, and that
the very same properties, as reflected in paragraphs
3 and 4 of the trial Court judgment, have again been
made the subject matter of prosecution in the split
chargesheet. The same sets of properties have been
referred to in both R.C. Case No. 04(A)/2010-AHD-
R(B) and the present case, i.e., R.C. Case No.
04(A)/2010-AHD-R(C), thereby indicating that both
prosecutions arise out of overlapping set of identical
allegations.
6
14. It was further urged that the appellant has
already undergone imprisonment for a period of
nearly four years in the earlier case. In the present
case also, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of seven years each under Sections
120-B read with 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) read with
13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 along with two years’
rigorous imprisonment under Section 120-B read
with Section 193 IPC, which, according to the
appellant, tantamounts to a dual punishment for the
same set of allegations thereby being in the teeth of
right against double jeopardy as guaranteed under
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
15. Shri Dave also pointed out that the tribal lands
involved in the case have already been ordered to be
confiscated by the Special Court under the PMLA vide
st
judgment dated 21 March, 2020. The appellant and
his family members undertake to extend full
cooperation in restoring the land to its original
status. It was contended that there is no likelihood of
the appeal being heard in the near future and,
considering that the maximum sentence awarded is
seven years, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on
bail during the pendency of the appeal.
7
16. Per contra , Shri Davinder Pal Singh, learned
Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
respondent-CBI, vehemently opposed the
submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. He
submitted that the appellant, while holding the
responsible public office of a Minister in the State of
Jharkhand, misused his official position and
indulged in extended acts of criminal misconduct
thereby amassing assets grossly disproportionate to
his known sources of income. He contended that the
allegations against the appellant are grave in nature
and, therefore, he does not deserve the indulgence of
bail.
17. However, referring to the reply to additional
queries made by this Court, Shri Singh conceded that
substantial assets of the appellant valuing nearly
Rs.18 crores have already been attached, and such
attachment stands confirmed by the adjudicating
authority. He also submitted that the tribal land in
question has been confiscated. It was, however,
pointed out that till date, no steps have been taken
by the State Government for cancellation of the sale
deeds and reversion of the tribal land in terms of the
provisions of the CNT Act.
8
18. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone
through the impugned judgment.
19. A perusal of the material available on record
would indicate that two split charge-sheets were filed
against the appellant arising from Vigilance P.S. Case
No. 26 of 2008, leading to the institution of R.C. Case
No. 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(B) and R.C. Case No.
04(A)/2010-AHD-R(C). Many of the allegations in the
present case and the earlier case appear to be
overlapping. In the previous case, the appellant had
remained in custody for more than 4 years,
whereafter, this Court suspended the sentences
awarded to the appellant and released him on bail.
20. A fervent contention has been raised on behalf
of the appellant that two separate prosecutions were
impermissible because the allegations in both the
cases are overlapping. This aspect of the case would
have to be gone into by the High Court while deciding
the pending appeals. However, the fact remains that
the appellant has undergone custodial incarceration
of more than 10 months in the present case as well.
The sentence awarded to the appellant in the other
case involving allegations of acquisition of
9
disproportionate assets, having been suspended by
this Court, we are inclined to grant bail to the
appellant in the present case also.
21. Accordingly, we direct that the appellant shall
be released on bail by suspending the substantive
sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court,
subject to the condition that the appellant files an
undertaking before the trial Court within 7 days of
his release, stating that he shall assist in the process
of restoration of the tribal land to its original status
as and when required. The release of the appellant on
bail shall further be subject to such other terms and
conditions as the trial Court may deem fit to impose
and upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties to the
satisfaction of the trial Court.
22. The impugned order is accordingly set aside.
23. The appeal is allowed in these terms.
24. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 13, 2026.
10
11