Bail Denied to Public Servant Alleged of Coercing Subordinates to Execute Fraudulent Land Mutations

The petitioner, former Deputy Commissioner of Hazaribagh, sought regular bail following his arrest on 11.11.2025.

The case involves Hazaribagh A.C.B. P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025, concerning the illegal mutation of government forest land (gairmazurwa khas kism jungle) in favor of Binay Kumar Singh and Snigdha Singh, individuals known to the petitioner for 25 years.

While the F.I.R. was lodged in 2025 based on a 2015 inquiry, investigations revealed that the then Circle Officer, Alka Kumari, performed the mutation under direct pressure from the petitioner despite her formal objections regarding the nature of the land.

Evidence emerged of a money trail totaling approximately ₹3.16 Crores deposited into a company, Brahmhastra Education Private Ltd., where the petitioner’s wife and brother-in-law serve as directors, allegedly to layer illicit funds.

Charge sheet was filed on 05.02.2026.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail considering the long delay in lodging the F.I.R., the filing of the charge sheet, and the release of co-accused in related matters.

2. Whether there exists a prima facie case of abuse of official position and money laundering that justifies continued incarceration to prevent witness tampering.

The Court applied the principles governing the grant of bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), specifically noting the weight of statements recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 164 CrPC) and Section 180 of the BNSS.

Substantive charges were considered under Sections 420 (Cheating), 467, 468, 471 (Forgery), and 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, alongside Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 1988, which penalizes criminal misconduct by a public servant.

The Court scrutinized the evidence linking the petitioner to the illegal mutation of forest land, specifically the statement of the Circle Officer under Section 183 BNSS which detailed the petitioner's direct coercion.

The Court found that the vendors of the property did not possess legal title, making the mutation inherently fraudulent.

Regarding the "money trail," the Court observed a significant discrepancy between the petitioner's known income (₹2.20 Crores) and his assets/expenditure (₹3.47 Crores), alongside suspicious transfers to a family-run company used for "layering" illicit funds.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s plea for parity with co-accused who received bail in other cases, noting that another co-accused, Shailesh Kumar, had his bail rejected.

The Court reasoned that given the petitioner’s previous high-ranking official position, his release posed a substantial risk of influencing subordinate officers who are key witnesses.

The Court held that there is a likelihood that the petitioner would influence witnesses if released.

The bail application was rejected.