Jharkhand High Court
Vinay Kumar Choubey vs The State Of Jharkhand Through A.C.B … on 28 April, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2026:JHHC:12346
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 1080 of 2026
Vinay Kumar Choubey, son of Devendra Choubey.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through A.C.B (Vigilance)
... Opposite Party
---
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
—
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
: Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, Advocate
: Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
: Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate
—
CAV on 23.04.2026 Pronounced on 28.04.2026
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
in custody since 11.11.2025 in connection with Hazaribagh A.C.B.
P.S. Case No.11 of 2025, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471, 120B of Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 1988, now pending
in the court of learned Additional District Judge – II – cum – Special
Judge, Vigilance (ACB), Hazaribagh.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
preliminary inquiry in this case was instituted vide P.E. No.24 of 2015
as back as on 27.08.2015 and F.I.R. was lodged after almost 10 years
on 25.09.2025. He has further submitted that though the petitioner is
not named in the F.I.R., but from the F.I.R. the only portion which
links the petitioner is in connection with certain inquiry when it came
to light that Binay Kumar Singh and Smt. Snigdha Singh had
purchased the property and their name was mutated vide Mutation
Case No.481 of 2010-2011 and it has been alleged that a portion of
the property in Khata No.95 plot no.848 was gairmazurwa land having
the nature of jungle (forest), still mutation was done in favour of the
purchasers of the forest land.
1
2026:JHHC:12346
4. He submits that in the F.I.R. itself, it has been alleged that
previously mutation of the forest land was done and the mutation was
also cancelled, still mutation was done in favour of Binay Kumar
Singh and Snigdha Singh. He has further submitted that the role of the
petitioner, who was the then Deputy Commissioner of the district of
Hazaribagh transpired when the co-accused, the then Circle Officer
Alka Kumari, made a statement under Section 183 of BNSS before
the court that the mutation was done at the instructions and pressure of
the present petitioner, who was the then Deputy Commissioner,
Hazaribagh.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the
impugned order at internal page 4 and submitted that the money
transaction with respect to the wife of the petitioner, family members,
Binay Kumar Singh and Snigdha Singh have been mentioned therein.
With respect to the transactions, the petitioner has filed the
supplementary affidavit and the explanation has been furnished right
from paragraphs 4 to 7 of the supplementary affidavit.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that charge
sheet has already been submitted against the petitioner on 05.02.2026.
7. The learned counsel has submitted that the co-accused Binay
Kumar Singh has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
connection with another F.I.R. No.20 of 2025 registered on
24.11.2025. The learned counsel submits that in the said case initially
interim bail was granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the bail
order has been subsequently confirmed vide Annexure – 1 to the
rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner.
8. The learned counsel further referred to the 2nd supplementary
affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, wherein, the order passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been annexed as Annexure- 2 which
shows that the present petitioner has been enlarged on bail in
connection with another case being ACB F.I.R. No.09 of 2025. He has
submitted that repeated F.I.Rs have been instituted against the
petitioner only to ensure that the petitioner remains in jail. This case
arises out of ACB P.S. Case No.11 of 2025.
2
2026:JHHC:12346
9. The learned counsel for the opposite party – ACB while
opposing the prayer of the petitioner has referred to paragraph 23 of
the counter affidavit to submit that when the petitioner was
questioned, he admitted that Binay Kumar Singh and Snigdha Singh,
the purchasers of the land, were having family relationship with the
petitioner for last 25 years. He then referred to paragraph 17 to submit
that one of the witnesses namely Circle Officer, Alka Kumari, has
given a statement under Section 183 of the BNSS that the petitioner,
by misusing his official position, forcefully got the land in question
mutated in favour of Binay Kumar Singh and Snigdha Singh, despite
specific objection raised by her that the land was gairmazurwa khas,
kism jungle land and that the mutation of the said land cannot be
done. It was under the instructions and directions of the present
petitioner the Circle Officer passed the order of the mutation in favour
of Binay Kumar Singh and Snigdha Singh.
10. He has then referred to paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit to
submit that the co-accused namely Rajendra Prasad Singh, who was
the then Circle Inspector, had suo moto submitted a reply to the
Investigating officer of the case that there was pressure from the
petitioner to carry out mutation in favour of Binay Kumar Singh and
Snigdha Singh. The learned counsel submits that the anticipatory bail
of Rajendra Prasad Singh is pending before this Court. The learned
counsel has submitted that with respect to another co-accused also, the
then Circle Sub-Inspector, namely Ram Prakash Choudhary,
anticipatory bail is pending before this Court.
11. The learned counsel has submitted that if the petitioner is
released on bail, there is a likelihood that he would influence the
aforesaid two co-accused persons who had also acted under the
directions and instructions of the petitioner.
12. The learned counsel then referred to paragraphs 20 and 21 of
the counter affidavit to submit that the vendor of another portion of
the land in question was never Bhagwan Prasad Gupta and others;
rather, the land was recorded in Register II in the name of Pradeep
Kumar Jain and Rajesh Kumar Jain. He submits that as the vendor of
3
2026:JHHC:12346
Snigdha Singh and Binay Kumar Singh was never Bhagwan Prasad
Gupta, there was no occasion to carry out mutation in the name of
Snigdha Singh and Binay Kumar Singh, as their vendors were
Bhagwan Prasad Gupta and others. He submits that all the subordinate
officers in the circle acted at the instructions and under pressure of the
present petitioner. The learned counsel submits that Bhagwan Prasad
Gupta did not have title with respect to the property, and therefore,
they could not have been vendor of Snigdha Singh and Binay Kumar
Singh, still the property was mutated in the name of Snigdha Singh
and Binay Kumar Singh. In the mutation proceeding, the title of the
vendor is required to be seen.
13. The learned counsel has then referred to paragraphs 30 to 33 of
the counter affidavit to submit that the entire money trail and the
manner in which the money has been transferred and deposited in the
account of one Brahmhastra Education Private Ltd, in which, the wife
of the petitioner and brother in law of the petitioner are the directors,
has been mentioned and there are cash deposits totaling
Rs.3,16,81,597/- during the period from 2010 to 2015. He submits
that the said company namely Brahmhastra Education Private Ltd. is
only a cloak to give legitimacy to the money transaction. Rather, the
company was used for layering of illicit money generated by the
petitioner.
14. The learned counsel has submitted that another case in that
connection has been registered with ACB being ACB Ranchi P.S.
Case No.20 of 2025 dated 24.11.2025, in which, the petitioner as well
as his wife and also Binay Kumar Singh and his wife Snigdha Singh
are named accused.
15. The learned counsel has submitted relevant paragraphs of the
case diary and statements of the witnesses recorded under Section
180/183 of the BNSS during the court proceedings, which as under:
Sl. Particulars Relevant paragraphs Relevant
No. of counter affidavit paragraph of case
diary
1. Case Diary No.27 13 2644
2026:JHHC:123462. Case Diary No.29 15 285
3. Statement of Alka Kumari 17 73, 75
recorded under Section 183 of
BNSS
4. Case Diary No.20 18 222 & 224
5. Case Diary No.32 19 298
6. Case Diary No.32 20 300
Case Diary No.3 306
7. Statement of Ashutosh 21, 22 299 & 300
recorded under Section 180 of
BNSS
Case Diary No.32
8 Case Diary No.40 23 361
16. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court
finds that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that the
petitioner being the then Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh had got
the mutation done in favour of Binay Kumar Singh and Snigdha Singh
whom he knew for last 25 years through the then Circle Officer, circle
inspector and revenue karamchari. It has also come during
investigation that the vendor of the property was not the recorded
owner of the property, and therefore, there was no occasion to mutate
the property in the name of Binay Kumar Singh and Snigdha Singh.
17. It has also come during investigation that the petitioner during
the period of his posting from 26.05.2008 to 05.10.2010 as Deputy
Commissioner, Hazaribagh got large stretch of gairmazurwa khas
jungle land mutated and the then Circle Officer Alka Kumari and the
then Circle Inspector and Revenue Karamchari have given statement
that the petitioner had called them and directed them to do the
required mutation.
18. The Circle Officer Alka Kumari has given her statement under
Section 183 of BNSS that the petitioner was misusing his official
position forcefully and got the land mutated in the name of Binay
Kumar Singh and Snigdha Singh despite specific objection raised by
her that the land was gairmazurwa khas kism jungle land and mutation
5
2026:JHHC:12346
cannot be done.
19. The case diary also reveals that the petitioner had asset and has
spent money to the extent of 3.47 crores although his income during
the period was 2.20 crores only.
20. It has been found during investigation that Binay Kumar Singh,
Snigdha Singh, Shipij Trivedi and Priyanka Trivedi and also the wife
of the petitioner, namely, Swapna Sanchita, were layering the illicit
money generated by the petitioner through their companies,
including Brahmhastra Education Private Ltd and in the said company
an amount of Rs.3.16 Crores was deposited during period from
01.04.2010 to 09.07.2015 and there were transactions between Binay
Singh/Snigdha Singh and wife of the petitioner in the said company.
21. The fact remains that the bail application of the co-accused
namely Shailesh Kumar has been rejected by this Court vide order
dated 07.01.2026 passed in B.A. No. 10960 of 2025.
22. In view of the aforesaid materials collected during
investigation, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner is enlarged
on bail, he may be in a position to influence the witnesses.
23. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner
on bail.
24. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court
concerned through FAX/email.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pronounced on: 28.04.2026
Uploaded on:28.04.2026
Saurav
6