SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Ranchi, Dec 5: The Jharkhand High Court, in an order delivered by Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi on Thursday, rejected the regular bail plea of accused Binay Kumar Singh in the Hazaribag land scam case, observing that the case involves “serious, structured and systematic fraud” carried out in collusion with senior government officials to illegally acquire state land.
The Court stated that bail cannot be granted at this stage due to prima facie evidence of forged documents, mass deletion of digital data, financial transactions involving the accused and a senior IAS officer, and the risk of further tampering with evidence.
Court: Case Shows Deep Conspiracy to Grab Government Land
The Court noted that the allegations go beyond a simple land dispute and instead reveal a “deliberate intention to grab valuable state land” using forged and fabricated documents. The Court highlighted:
- The mutation of 28 decimals of land was allegedly passed under undue influence of the then Deputy Commissioner, Vinay Kumar Choubey.
- Case-diary entries showed that the original land records of Mutation Case No. 481/2010–11 are missing, and a Sanha had to be registered.
- The mutation order recorded the raiayats as Pradeep Kumar Jain and Rajesh Kumar Jain, but the sale deed was executed by unrelated sellers, showing a mismatch the court described as deeply suspicious.
- The court observed that no relationship exists between the actual raiyats and the persons who sold the land, strengthening the allegation of a forged transaction.
- Key Evidence: Money Trail Between the Accused and IAS Officer
- The case diary placed before the Jharkhand High Court also highlights Binay Kumar Singh’s links to NexGen Solution Technologies Pvt Ltd, a company connected to the financial transactions involving the then Deputy Commissioner, Vinay Kumar Choubey. According to the ACB, an amount of Rs.72,97,500 was paid by NexGen Solution Technologies to the account of Choubey’s wife, a transaction the agency has treated as part of the suspected money trail between Singh and the IAS officer’s family. While the petitioner has claimed that the payment was made for consultancy services provided by Choubey’s wife, the Court noted that this explanation is part of the defence and will be examined during the trial. These financial links form a significant element of the ACB’s wider corruption investigation against Singh.
Justice Dwivedi recorded that the case diary contains details of significant financial links between Binay Kumar Singh and former Deputy Commissioner Vinay Kumar Choubey and his family.
The Court highlighted:
- A sum of Rs 72,97,500 was transferred into the account of Choubey’s wife, with only one bill provided as justification.
- Around Rs 3.16 crore in cash was deposited into the account of M/s Brahmastra Education Pvt Ltd, a company run by Choubey’s wife and brother-in-law.
- These details, the court noted, indicated a “deep-rooted conspiracy” involving public officials.
The Court also took note of the ACB’s assertion that mass digital data deletion occurred in the accused’s computer systems after the showroom was unsealed, suggesting deliberate destruction of evidence.
Court Refers to Supreme Court Rulings on Economic Offences
The Court relied on landmark Supreme Court judgments—Subrata Chattoraj, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, and Hassan Ali Khan—to underline that economic offences involving large-scale corruption must be treated as grave threats to national financial health and require stricter scrutiny at the bail stage.
Risk of Evidence Tampering a Key Reason for Denial
The Court explained that bail principles require examining the nature of accusation, evidence, possible punishment, and risk of witness or evidence tampering. In this case, the Court found:
- Prima facie materials strongly establish a corruption network involving forged documents and illegal land transfer.
- Since deletion of digital records has already been discovered, there is a real and reasonable apprehension that the accused may tamper with evidence if released.
- The petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail in another ACB case (Liquor Scam Case No. 9/2025), and the ACB has already sought cancellation of that bail due to alleged tampering.
These circumstances, Justice Dwivedi held, make the grant of bail inappropriate at this stage.
Bail Application Dismissed
Concluding that the case involves a serious economic offence and there is a strong possibility of interference with the investigation, the High Court dismissed the petitioner’s bail plea in B.A. No. 10499 of 2025.