The Jharkhand High Court has rejected the regular bail application filed by an IAS officer, who is accused in a large-scale Khas Mahal land scam being investigated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi refused bail after holding that there were sufficient materials on record indicating the petitioner’s active role in the irregular transfer and renewal of government land during his tenure as Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh.
The case has been registered under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B, along with Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and is presently pending before the Court of the Additional District Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Vigilance (ACB). The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 13 August 2025 and has approached the High Court seeking regular bail.
While the petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated and had merely forwarded proposals in accordance with government directions, the Court noted that the materials placed on record, including the case diary and statements of purchasers, prima facie suggested that the petitioner was instrumental in moving files and recommending government approvals for the transfer of Khas Mahal land through power-of-attorney holders.
The Court also took note of statements recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, wherein purchasers stated that they were assured by intermediaries of easy transfer due to their proximity to the higher officials. These intermediaries were used to visit the office of the DC when the petitioner was posted as Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh.
Rejecting the bail plea, the Court emphasised the gravity of economic offences and noted that the petitioner, being a senior IAS officer and custodian of land records, held a position of influence. The Court accepted the ACB’s apprehension that he could tamper with documentary evidence or influence witnesses if released on bail, especially after noting that uncertified official documents had been annexed by the petitioner even while in custody.
The Court also took note to alleged financial transactions, including deposits of ₹3.16 crore in the account of a private company linked to the petitioner’s family members, as reflected in the case diary.
Holding that the allegations disclosed abuse of official position, undue favour in land allotments, and serious socio-economic implications, the Court concluded that the balance of factors weighed against the grant of bail at this stage and dismissed the application.
Appearances
Petitioner- Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Senior Advocate Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, Advocate
Respondent- Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate : Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate
