Binay Kumar Sinku vs State of Jharkhand

Ananda Sen, J.—Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to appear and assist this Court.

Permission is accorded.

Heard learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner and also learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the informant.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Kotwali P.S. case no.864 of 2015 registered under Sections 420, 466, 477(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he being Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi passed back dated order to save himself from the rigor of contempt which was pending before this Court.

It has been further stated that there is no mens rea and the petitioner, who was Sub-divisional Officer at that point of time has been punished in a departmental proceeding. He further states that the instant case has been lodged eight years after the order was passed in LPA wherein respondents were directed to take appropriate action against the erring officer, if some illegality or irregularity was committed. He further submits that the complainant is not an aggrieved party and further the contempt was dropped.

Counsel for the opposite party appears and states that the order has been found to be ante dated which is apparent from enquiry report of the Commissioner itself. He further states that after it was found that the order was ante dated, he was called by the Officer-in-Charge at the instance of the DGP and thereafter he has lodged this FIR. He further states that as the order has been ante dated, this application is liable to be dismissed.

After hearing the parties and from perusal of the record of the case it is apparent that an order was passed by the petitioner pursuant to a direction of this Hon''ble Court. The said order was passed during pendency of Cont.(C) case No.595 of 2013. After the order was passed, the contempt was dropped in presence of the opposite party by this Court on 23.12.2005. At that point of time, the opposite party has not taken the plea that the order was ante dated. Later on, in a LPA proceeding, an order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court to enquire into the matter to find out whether the order is ante dated and/or the order is illegal or has been passed with mala fide intention and in that case, the authority was directed to pass fresh order after hearing the parties. In the said order, it has also been directed that the respondent will take appropriate action against the erring officers after noticing and hearing them. It is apparent that the petitioner was noticed and a departmental proceeding was initiated and he was punished. After long gap of nearly eight years, present criminal case has been filed by the informant that the petitioner has passed ante dated order. Further it appears prima facie that no personal benefit has been achieved by the petitioner and no loss has been caused to the complainant.

Keeping in view that this criminal case was filed after more than eight years from the enquiry which was held against him and also taking that view the petitioner has been punished in the departmental proceeding, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, namely, Binay Kumar Sinku. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest/surrender, the petitioner above named shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Kotwali P.S. case no.864 of 2015 corresponding to G.R.No.6695 of 2015 subject to condition laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The petitioner will co-operate in the investigation, failing which the Investigating Officer will take appropriate steps for cancellation of the privilege of bail.