SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Ranchi, Nov. 8: The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed the CBI’s petition seeking a ‘specific’ order to lodge an FIR against Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren’s aide Pankaj Mishra, and hostile ED witness Bijay Hansda among others in an illegal mining case in Sahibganj.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Kumar, appearing for the CBI, submitted that there is no direction for registration of the FIR after the preliminary inquiry and for taking over the investigation. So, the modification of the August 18 order is required, he added.
Advocate General Rajiv Ranjan, however, submitted that once the criminal case is disposed of, the court ceases to pass any order given Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. He submitted that the order is already there and there is no need to modify the same.
A single bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, in its order on November 3, expressed its anger over the CBI interpretation of its earlier order, and described the CBI petition as ‘misconceived’, and dismissed the modification petition given the order it passed on August 18.
The court, while delivering a judgement on a petition filed by Bijay Hansda had asked the CBI to hold a preliminary enquiry (PE) into the “conduct of accused persons (Pankaj Mishra among others) named in the SC/ST Sahibganj P.S. Case No.06/2022 dated 01.12.2022 as well as the complainant Bijay Hansda and also directed the Director, CBI to take further action in accordance with the law.
“If the CBI Director concludes that there is no reason to proceed further in the matter, he may pass appropriate order to that effect,” the court said.
The CBI, however, interpreted the order as for holding a PE only and not for lodging an FIR if the allegations were found true. So, in its petition, the agency sought the court to pass an order that is “deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
The court had issued the orders on the petition of Bijay Hansda, who alleged that for the last two-and-a-half years, “stone mafias” have been doing “illegal mining” in connivance with government officials including mining officials of his district.
The CBI, in its preliminary enquiry, found the case filed by Mukesh Yadav and Ashok Yadav, both ED witnesses, as true saying that Bijay Hansda at times acted under the influence of accused persons in SC/ST Sahibganj P.S. Case No.06 of 2022. The charges of manhandling the ED officers in the high court premises were also true.
The court’s anguish over the CBI’s interpretation of the August 18 order was not without reason.
For, the CBI had earlier lodged an FIR against Kolkata-based businessman Amit Agarwal and unknown officials of the Kolkata police on January 19 on a “similarly worded order of the same bench of the court” after holding a preliminary enquiry.
Agarwal was booked for hatching a conspiracy and scandalising the judiciary, ED officials and other government officials through an allegedly frivolous FIR. The ED has already arrested Agarwal in the Ranchi land scam.
What is the order in the case of Bijay Hansda and Pankaj Mishra on August 18?
“This Court hopes and trusts that the officers appointed for the purpose of conducting preliminary enquiry shall receive due consideration from individual agencies who are approached by the C.B.I including the Enforcement Directorate (E.D). Once the preliminary enquiry is completed and report to that effect is submitted, the Director, C.B.I shall be at liberty to choose further course of action in accordance with law. If the Director, C.B.I comes to the conclusion that there is no reason to proceed further in the matter, he may pass appropriate order to that effect.”
HC order in Amit Agarwal’s case on November 30 2022
“…the Court comes to the conclusion that it would be sufficiently served if the Director, CBI is directed to initiate a preliminary inquiry into the conduct of this petitioner and it is, therefore, being ordered by this Court accordingly. Such preliminary inquiry shall be conducted in accordance with law and concluded as early as possible within 15 days from receipt of a copy of this order. The Court hopes and trusts that the officer(s) appointed for the purpose of conducting preliminary inquiry shall receive due cooperation from individuals/agencies who are approached by the CBI. Once the preliminary inquiry report is submitted, the Director, CBI shall be at liberty to choose further course of action, in accordance with law. If the Director, CBI comes to the conclusion that there is no reason to proceed, he may pass appropriate order.”