Appeal
3. The appellant herein, a former Minister in the State of Jharkhand has preferred the instant appeal against order dated 18th December, 2025 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi1 in I.A. No. 13857 of 2025 arising out of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 850 of 2025, whereby the High Court rejected the appellant’s application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during pendency of the appeal.
Brief
4. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that an FIR being Vigilance Bureau P.S. Case No. 26 of 2008 came to be registered on the basis of a complaint filed by one Kumar Binod alleging that the appellant and another Minister, namely, Hari Narain Rai, had acquired assets disproportionate to their known sources of income. Pursuant to order dated 4th August, 2010 passed by the High Court in WP (PIL) Nos. 4700 of 2008 and 2222 of 2009, the investigation was assigned to Central Bureau of Investigation.
5. It is alleged that as against a pre-check asset of Rs. 10,48,827/-, the appellant amassed assets worth approximately Rs. 57.01 crores. These assets include land in and around Ranchi and a palatial bungalow. It is further alleged that after becoming a Minister, the appellant floated construction companies and got them registered with the Rural Works Department in order to legalise his illegally acquired wealth.
6. It is also alleged that the appellant misused his position to illegally acquire large tracts of tribal lands in violation of the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. The transactions were made in the name of his wife, Mrs. Menon Ekka, by furnishing false residential addresses and submitting false affidavits. The investigation further revealed that such illegal transactions were orchestrated in connivance with public officials including the Land Reforms Deputy Collector and Circle Office staff, who facilitated illegal transfers of tribal lands despite statutory prohibitions.
7. It is further alleged that the appellant floated firms such as M/s Mahamaya Construction and M/s Ekka Construction Pvt. Ltd., in which his wife was the major shareholder, and later got these firms registered as Class-I contractors despite not fulfilling the eligibility criteria. These firms were awarded lucrative government contracts by departments which were under the direct control of the appellant, thereby conferring undue pecuniary advantage.
8. Upon completion of investigation, the CBI submitted a chargesheet dated 11th December, 2012 against the appellant and other accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 193 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19884, on the basis of which the appellant was put to trial in R.C. Case No. 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(B) The appellant was ultimately held guilty for offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 and Section 120B read with Section 193 IPC.
9. Be that as it may, the appeal against the said conviction is still pending consideration before the High Court of Jharkhand. The sentence awarded to the appellant in the said case was suspended by this Court and he was granted bail vide order dated 28th April, 2023 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 5004 of 2023.
10. The CBI thereafter submitted a separate chargesheet leading to the institution of R.C. Case No. 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(C), out of which the present proceedings arise. In the said case, the appellant was tried and convicted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 29th August, 2025 for offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 and Section 120B read with Section 193 IPC, and vide order dated 30th August, 2025, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years each for the offences under the PC Act, 1988 along with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, and rigorous imprisonment of two years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 120B read with Section 193 IPC, with all sentences directed to run concurrently.
11. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 850 of 2025, which is pending consideration before the High Court. The application for suspension of sentence filed therein came to be rejected by order dated 18th December, 2025, and being aggrieved of such rejection, the appellant has approached this Court by way of the present appeal by special leave.
Analysis
18. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment.
Two cases (split charge-sheets) from a single case that appear to be overlapping
19. A perusal of the material available on record would indicate that two split charge-sheets were filed against the appellant arising from Vigilance P.S. Case No. 26 of 2008, leading to the institution of R.C. Case No. 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(B) and R.C. Case No. 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(C). Many of the allegations in the present case and the earlier case appear to be overlapping. In the previous case, the appellant had remained in custody for more than 4 years, whereafter, this Court suspended the sentences awarded to the appellant and released him on bail.
Since previous Supreme Court bench has suspended the sentence in other case present bench suspended this one
20. A fervent contention has been raised on behalf of the appellant that two separate prosecutions were impermissible because the allegations in both the cases are overlapping. This aspect of the case would have to be gone into by the High Court while deciding the pending appeals. However, the fact remains that the appellant has undergone custodial incarceration of more than 10 months in the present case as well. The sentence awarded to the appellant in the other case involving allegations of acquisition of disproportionate assets, having been suspended by this Court, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant in the present case also.
21. Accordingly, we direct that the appellant shall be released on bail by suspending the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court, subject to the condition that the appellant files an undertaking before the trial Court within 7 days of his release, stating that he shall assist in the process of restoration of the tribal land to its original status as and when required. The release of the appellant on bail shall further be subject to such other terms and conditions as the trial Court may deem fit to impose and upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Resources
Related Court Orders and Cases
- Order dated December 18, 2025, in I.A. No. 13857 of 2025: The Jharkhand High Court order being appealed, which originally rejected the appellant’s request for suspension of sentence.
- SLP (Crl.) No. 5004 of 2023 (Order dated April 28, 2023): A previous Supreme Court order that granted the appellant bail and suspended his sentence in a related disproportionate assets case (R.C. Case No. 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(B)).
- WP (PIL) Nos. 4700 of 2008 and 2222 of 2009 (Order dated August 4, 2010): The Jharkhand High Court orders that transferred the investigation from the Vigilance Bureau to the CBI.
- PMLA Special Court Judgment dated March 21, 2020: A ruling that ordered the confiscation of the tribal lands involved in the case.
Specific Prosecution Cases
- Vigilance Bureau P.S. Case No. 26 of 2008: The foundational FIR from which the split charge-sheets originated.
- R.C. Case No. 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(B): The first split prosecution where the appellant had already spent over four years in custody.
- R.C. Case No. 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(C): The present case from which this Supreme Court appeal arose.
- Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 850 of 2025: The substantive appeal currently pending before the Jharkhand High Court.
Statutory and Constitutional References
- Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India: Cited by the appellant’s counsel regarding the right against double jeopardy (noted in the context of dual punishment for the same allegations).
- Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (CNT Act): Specifically referenced regarding the illegal acquisition and proposed restoration of tribal lands.
- Sections 120B, 193, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: The penal provisions under which the appellant was charged and convicted.
Party
Anosh Ekka vs. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation - Criminal Appeal No. 1922 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 891 of 2026) - 2026 INSC 357 - April 13, 2026 – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta.
