TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thereafter the present petition has been filed seeking the regular bail. He submits that this petition has been directly filed before the High Court instead of filing before the learned trial court. He further submits that this aspect of the matter has already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Twinkle Soni & Anr. Versus State of Jharkhand, reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Jhar 2008. He submits that on merits of the case, the prayer for regular bail of this petitioner has already been rejected by order dated 30.08.2024 passed in B.A. No. 8244 of 2023 and the present bail application has been filed only on the ground of the period of custody and also on the ground of delay in conclusion of the trial. He submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 14.04.2023. 4. Learned counsel submits that for the predicate offence, the case has been registered on 04.06.2022, being Bariatu P.S. Case No. 141 of 2022 and further ECIR Case No. 01 of 2023 was registered on 21.10.2022, however, the petitioner herein was not the accused in the Original ECIR and subsequently he was remanded on 14.04.2023 in that case. He further submits that in another ECIR case, being ECIR C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upreme Court. Based on Rajesh Rai Case (Supra), one Bharat Prasad in the case of Bharat Prasad Versus Union of India, has also been enlarged on bail in Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 2025 [arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 51604 of 2024] by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. Learned counsel further submits that one Virendra Kumar Ram was an accused in another ECIR case, was also granted regular bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the ratio of V. Senthil Bajaji (Supra) in the case of Virendra Kumar Ram Versus Union of India, in Criminal Appeal No. 4615 of 2024 [arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 12667 of 2024]. 9. On the ground of expeditious trial and on the ground of liberty and considering Article-21 of the Constitution of India, one Viajy Nair was granted regular bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Nair Versus Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3597. 10. On the point of incarceration, he relied in the case of Neeraj Singal Versus Directorate of Enforcement in SLP (Crl.) No. 8439-8440 of 2024 and submits that on the ground of judicial incarceration, he was also released on regular bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He submits th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pposed the prayer and submits that so far as merits of the case is concerned, that has already been considered by this court by a detailed order dated 30.08.2024 passed in B.A. No. 8244 of 2023, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner has already been rejected. He submits that serious allegations are there and he is accused in three ECIR cases besides other case. He submits that so far as ECIR Case No. 01 of 2023 is concerned, one another co-accused Talhan Khan's regular bail has already been rejected by the co-ordinate bench of this court in B.A. No. 10272 of 2024 and his role was of assisting the petitioner and the petitioner is the main accused with regard to tampering of the deeds and that has also been done by way of manipulating the offices at Kolkata. 15. He further submits that another co-accused, being an IAS officer namely Chhavi Ranjan, his regular bail has also been rejected by the co-ordinate bench of this court in B.A. No. 9247 of 2023 and said Chhavi Ranjan is also incarceration since June, 2023. He also submits that further the prayer for regular bail of another co-accused, namely Amit Kumar Agrawal has been rejected by the co-ordinate bench in B.A. No. 734....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s on record and anxiously considered the arguments advanced by both the parties. It is an admitted position that the petitioner herein is an accused in three ECIR cases instituted by the ED and it was further pointed out that he is also the accused in the predicate offence and one IPC Sections case. 21. So far as predicate offence, being Bariatu P.S. Case No. 141 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. No. 2089 of 2024 is concerned, the prayer for regular bail of this petitioner has already been rejected by the co-ordinate bench of this court by order dated 10.02.2025 in B.A. No. 499 of 2025 along with other co-accused persons and further in two another ECIR cases, his regular bail has already been rejected by the co-ordinate bench by judgments dated 11.04.2025 and 24.04.2025 in B.A. Nos. 3193 of 2024 and B.A. No. 8380 of 2024 respectively by the co-ordinate bench of this court and on merits, this court has also rejected the prayer for regular bail of this petitioner on 30.08.2024 passed in B.A. No. 8244 of 2023. 22. Allegation against this petitioner is that he said to be the Government employee of RIMS, Ranchi and he was involved in preparation of the fake deeds at Kolkata and the nu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e or another petition. 27. In the judgments relied by Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the cases of Manish Sisodia, V. Senthil Balaji, Rajesh Rai, Bharat Prasad, Virendra Kumar Ram, Vijay Nair, Neeraj Singhal, Padam Chand Jain and Udhaw Singh (supras) they were accused in only one case, except in the case of V. Senthil Balaji. 28. In regard to limitation under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the limitation of granting bail was considered in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Versus Rajesh Ranjan, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528, where in para-11, it has been held as under:- "11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a first time offender (who has never been convicted of any offence in the past) he shall be released on bond by the Court, if he has undergone detention for the period extending up to one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for such offence under that law: Provided further that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail bond instead of his bond: Provided also that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law. Explanation.-In computing the period of detention under this section for granting bail, the period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded. (2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), and subject to the third proviso thereof, where an investigation, inquiry or trial in more than one offence or in multiple cases are pending against a person, he shall not....