Patna High Court – Orders
Amresh Ram vs The State Of Bihar Through Eou on 10 July, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26584 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-13 Year-2022 Thana- ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BIHAR
District- Patna
======================================================
Amresh Ram Son of Late Manichand ram village- Ward no. 13, Minibigha, Ps
and Dist- Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar through EOU Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Vishwanath Pd. Sinha, APP
For the EOU : Mr. V.N.P Sinha, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 10-07-2025
Heard Mr. Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Vishwanath Pd. Sinha, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State, Mr. V.N.P Sinha, learned
counsel for the EOU.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Special Case No. 15 of 2022 arising out of
Economic Offence Unit P.S. Case No. 13 of 2022, F.I.R. dated
07.03.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w
13(1)(b) of the P.C. Act 1988 (as amended in 2018).
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner misused
his powers and position to acquire disproportionate assets in his
name and in the name of his wife. It is further alleged that the
petitioner has purchased land and immovable properties in the
name of his family members.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26584 of 2025(3) dt.10-07-2025
2/12
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. It is alleged in the FIR that the
petitioner acquired the assets through illegal means and corrupt
malpractices during his services, amassing disproportionate
assets of Rs. 1,09,44,544/- (Rupees One Crore Nine Lakh Forty
Four Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Four ), during the said
check period. Based on these allegations, the present FIR is
instituted against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after
completing the investigation, the investigation officer (I.O)
submitted charge sheet dated 07.03.2022 against the petitioner
where in the total income of the petitioner from the known
sources comes to Rs. 1,22,63, 501/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty
Two Lakh Sixty Three Thousand Five Hundred and One) and
total expenditure of the petitioner comes to Rs. 1,23,84,519/-
(Rupees One Lakh Twenty Three Lakh Eighty Four Thousand
Five Hundred and Nineteen) and the total immovable assets
possessed by the petitioner comes out to Rs.60,59,000/-(Rupees
Sixty Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand) and the movable assets
acquired by the petitioner comes to Rs.47,64,526/- (Rupees
Forty Seven Lakh Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26584 of 2025(3) dt.10-07-2025
3/12
Twenty Six). It is further alleged that the petitioner has acquired
the assets through illegal means and out of corrupt malpractices
during his services and has acquired disproportionate asset of
Rs. 1,09,44,544/- (Rupees One Crore Nine Lakh Forty Four
Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Four ) during the check
period.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity whatsoever by
the vigilance to account for in the manner required under the
directives of section 13(1)(b) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The
Investigation Officer (I.O) has committed various irregularities
in calculating the assets and various investments of the
petitioner in the charge-sheet. The I.O. has calculated the value
of all immovable property but missed out to include stamp duty
and registration charges related with the aforesaid immovable
properties and the value of stamp duty and registration charges
are evident from the list of immovable properties included in
the charge sheet. The gross value of stamp duty paid and
registration fee paid is summed to Rs.6,63,636/- (Rupees Six
Lakh Sixty Three Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Six) and it
should be included to get value of gross immovable properties
of the petitioner. The total immovable assets acquired by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26584 of 2025(3) dt.10-07-2025
4/12
petitioner comes to Rs. 67,22,636/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Lakh
Twenty Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Six) only instead of
60,59,000/-(Rupees Sixty Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand).
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
I.O. has already filed charge sheet long back in 07.03.2022
itself and the present case is based on the documentary
evidence. He further refers to paragraph no.9 and 10 of the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No. 18081 of 2024 which is quoted
hereinbelow:-
“We are of the view that once the investigation
is over and charge-sheet is filed then the
accused should be asked to appear before the
Court concerned and should furnish bail to the
satisfaction of the trial court.
10. If at all, the Investigation Officer wanted
to interrogate the petitioner, he could have
arrested him during the course of the
investigation itself. Now there is no point in
making a formal arrest.”
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to
paragraph-10 of the order/judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Mahdoom Bava vs. Central Bureau
of Investigation in Cr. Appl….of 2023(arising out of SLP
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26584 of 2025(3) dt.10-07-2025
5/12
(Crl.376 of 2023) in which is quoted hereinbelow:-
“10. More, importantly, the appellants
apprehend arrest, not at the behest of the
CBI but at the behest of the Trial Court.
This is for the reason that in some parts of
the country, there seems to be a practice
followed by Courts to remand the accused
to custody, the moment they appear in
response to the summoning order. The
correctness of such practice has to be tested
in an appropriate case. Suffice for the
present to note that it is not the CBI which
is seeking their custody, but the appellants
apprehend that they may be remanded to
custody by the Trial Court and this is why
they seek protection. We must keep this in
mind while deciding the fate of these
appeals.”
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
view of the aforesaid judgment, the investigation is already
completed and after investigation the EOU had already filed
charge sheet against the petitioner long back in 07.03.2022 and
the present case is based on the documentary evidence so
custodial interrogation is not required in the present case, so
petitioner may be given the benefit of anticipatory bail.
10. The learned counsel for the EOU has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26584 of 2025(3) dt.10-07-2025
6/12
has come during investigation that the petitioner has acquired
the disproportionate asset of Rs. 1,09,44,544/- (Rupees One
Crore Nine Lakh Forty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Forty
Four ) during the said check period and it is admitted fact that
the petitioner has acquired more income from known sources.
11. Learned counsel for the EOU refers to paragraph
no. 21, 31 and 32 of the judgment reported in (2025) 4 SCC
493 in (Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. State of Punjab) which is
mentioned hereinbelow:-
“21. The parameters for grant of anticipatory
bail in a serious offence like corruption are
required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can
be granted only in exceptional circumstances
where the court is prima facie of the view that
the applicant has been falsely enroped in the
crime or the allegations are politically
motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at
hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any
exceptional circumstances have been made out
by the petitioner- accused for grant of
anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the
prosecution.
31. In Neera Yadav v CBI, this Court observed
thus (SCC pp 784-85, paras 59-61)
59. Every country feels a constant longing for
good governance righteous use of power and
transparency in administration. Corruption is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26584 of 2025(3) dt.10-07-2025
7/12no longer a moral issue as it is linked with the
search of wholesome governance and the
society’s need for reassurance that the system
functions fairly, free from corruption and
nepotism. Corruption has spread its tentacles
almost on all the key areas of the State and it is
an impediment to the growth of investment and
development of the country. If the conduct of
administrative authorities is righteous and
duties are performed in good faith with the
vigilance and awareness that they are public
trustees of people’s rights, the issue of lack of
accountability would themselves fade into
insignificance.
60. To state the ubiquity of corruption, we may
refer to the oft quoted words of Kautilya,
which reads as under:
‘Just as it is impossible not to taste the
honey or the poison that finds itself at the tip
of the tongue, so it is impossible for a
government servant not to eat up, at least, a
bit of the king’s revenue. Just as fish moving
under water cannot possibly be found out
either as drinking or not drinking water, so
government servants employed in the
government work cannot be found out
(while) taking money (for themselves). It is
possible to mark the movements of birds
flying high up in the sky but not so is it
possible to ascertain the movement of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26584 of 2025(3) dt.10-07-2025
8/12government servants of hidden purpose.
61. Tackling corruption is going to be a
priority task for the Government. The
Government has been making constant
efforts to deal with the problem of corruption
However the constant legislative reforms and
strict judicial actions have still not been able
to completely uproot the deeply rooted evil of
corruption. This is the area where the
Government needs to be seen taking
unrelenting, stern and uncompromising
steps. Leaders should think of introducing
good and effective leadership at the helm of
affairs, only then benefits of liberalisation
and various programmes, welfare schemes
and programmes would reach the masses,
Lack of awareness and supine attitude of the
public has all along been found to be to the
advantage of the corrupt Due to the
uncontrolled spread of consumerism and fall
in moral values, corruption has taken deep
roots in the society What is needed is a
reawakening and recommitment to the basic
values of tradition rooted in ancient and
external wisdom Unless people rise against
bribery and corruption, society can never be
rid of this disease The people can
collectively put off this evil by resisting
corruption by any person, howsoever high he
or she may be ”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26584 of 2025(3) dt.10-07-2025
9/12
32. In the overall view of the matter, we are
convinced that the High Court rightly
denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner
herein.”
12. Learned counsel for the EOU also refers to
paragraph-22 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reported in 2024 (1) PLJR (SC) 146 in Tarun Kumar vs.
Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement) which is
mentioned hereinbelow:-
22. Lastly, it may be noted that as held in catena
of decisions, the economic offences constitute a
class apart and need to be visited with a
different approach in the matter of bail. The
economic offences having deep-rooted
conspiracies and involving huge loss of public
funds need to be viewed seriously and
considered as grave offences affecting the
economy of the country as a whole and thereby
posing serious threat to the financial health of
the country. Undoubtedly, economic offences
have serious repercussions on the development
of the country as a whole. To cite a few
judgments in this regard are YS Jagan Mohan
Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,
(2013) 7 SCC 439, Nimmagadda Prasad vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC
466, Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of
Enforcement (supra), State of Bihar and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26584 of 2025(3) dt.10-07-2025
10/12Another vs. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai,
(2017) 13 SCC 751. This court taking a serious
note with regard to the economic offences had
observed as back as in 1987 in case of State of
Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and
Another, (1987) 2 SCC 364 as under:-
“5… The entire community is aggrieved if
the economic offenders who ruin the
economy of the State are not brought to
books A murder may be committed in the
heat of moment upon passions being
aroused. An economic offence is committed
with cool calculation and deliberate design
with an eye on personal profit regardless of
the consequence to the community. A
disregard for the Interest of the community
can be manifested only at the cost of
forfeiting the trust and faith of the
community in the system to administer
justice in an even-handed manner without
fear of criticism from the quarters which
view white collar crimes with a permissive
eye unmindful of the damage done to the
National Economy and National Interest….”
13. Learned counsel for the EOU submits that in view
of the aforesaid judgment the petitioner is not entitled for grant
of anticipatory bail.
14. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26584 of 2025(3) dt.10-07-2025
11/12
and the fact that charge-sheet has already been submitted by
EOU in the year 2022 itself and the present case is based on
documentary evidence, so no interrogation is required in the
present case by EOU and in view of the judgment referred by the
learned counsel for the petitioner as mentioned aforesaid and
apart from that petitioner has clean antecedent and petitioner has
not been afforded any opportunity whatsoever by the vigilance to
account for in the manner required under the directives of section
13(1)(b) of the P.C. Act, 1988, let the petitioner, above named, in
the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned PO Special Court (Vigilance), Patna
in connection with Special Case No. 15 of 2022 arising
out of Economic Offence Unit P.S. Case No. 13 of 2022,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following
conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26584 of 2025(3) dt.10-07-2025
12/12on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bond in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
[ad_1]
Source link