The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the regular bail application filed by Binay Kumar Singh in an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) case involving alleged fraudulent mutation of forest land and associated money trail transactions.
The petitioner, Binay Kumar Singh, aged about 61 years, sought regular bail in connection with ACB Hazaribagh P.S. Case, in which he has been in custody since 26 September 2025. The FIR was registered under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.
ACB alleges that the petitioner colluded with the then Deputy Commissioner Vinay Kumar Choubey to illegally mutate 28 decimals of Gair Majurwa Khas forest land (Khata 95, Plot 848). Investigation revealed seller-raiyat mismatch, mass data deletion from petitioner’s devices, and money trails including Rs. 72.97 lakhs to the Deputy Commissioner’s wife and Rs. 3.16 crores cash deposits to Deputy Commissioner’s family-linked firm.
The petitioner argued that mutation and jamabandi issues cannot ground criminal liability. The Supreme Court had requested the High Court to decide the bail application within a week, leading to the matter being taken up out of turn on 3 and 4 December 2025. The petitioner also holds anticipatory bail in a related ACB P.S. Case (liquor scam), in which the ACB has moved for cancellation on the ground of evidence tampering and notice has already been issued by the concerned court.
The ACB, on the other hand, argued that the case is not about civil title but about a structured and systematic fraud to grab State land by preparing and using forged documents as genuine, with active collusion between the petitioner and a Deputy Commissioner, mass deletion of digital data to erase money trails, missing mutation records, and large cash deposits and transfers to entities linked to the Deputy Commissioner’s family.
The Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi agreed with the ACB’s characterization of the present matter as involving illegal acquisition of valuable State land by forged and fabricated documents, with public officials’ involvement and misuse of official systems, thereby making the offence an economic crime of grave nature.
The Court noted that at the bail stage, it requires only reasonable grounds for believing that there is a genuine case against the accused, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. On facts, the Court held that there exist strong prima facie materials indicating the petitioner’s involvement in a serious economic offence perpetrated in collusion with a senior public official and involving forged documents, wrongful mutation of forest land, and sophisticated money trails.
The Court further noted that the petitioner is already on anticipatory bail in another ACB case where the agency has sought cancellation for alleged evidence tampering, which strengthens the apprehension that he may interfere with the ongoing investigation if released on regular bail.
With these observations, the Court declined to grant regular bail and dismissed the bail application.
Cases referred to:
1. Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 768
2. YS Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439
3. Union of India v. Hassan Ali Khan, (2011) 10 SCC 235
