Binod Kumar Pandey vs. The State Of Jharkhand
Facts
The petitioner, Binod Kumar Pandey, sought bail in ATS Case No. 01 of 2022. The FIR alleged that gangster Aman Srivastava and his associates were extorting money from industrialists and businessmen in Jharkhand. Information suggested that Siddhartha Sahu was holding a large sum to be sent to Aman Srivastava and Abhik Srivastava via Hawala. A raid led to the recovery of a revolver and bullets from Sanjay Karmkar, who claimed to be Prince Raj's bodyguard. Rs. 28,88,000/- was recovered from Siddhartha Sahu's house, and Rs. 5,42,000/- was seized from the petitioner, Binod Kumar Pandey. The petitioner claimed innocence, stating the recovered amount was for business purposes and intended for GST deposit, not proceeds of crime. He has been in jail since January 17, 2022.
Held
The Court allowed the bail application of the petitioner, Binod Kumar Pandey. The Court's decision was based on the petitioner's submission that the seized amount of Rs. 5,42,000/- was not the proceeds of extortion or any crime, but rather legitimate business funds intended for the deposit of GST. The State's contention that the recovered amount was proceeds of crime was not sufficiently substantiated to deny bail at this stage. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's claim regarding the nature of the funds, coupled with his period of incarceration since January 17, 2022, warranted the grant of bail. The operative direction was to release the applicant on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 40,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the amount of Rs. 5,42,000/- seized from the petitioner's residence constitutes proceeds of crime, thereby disentitling him to bail under Sections 386, 387, 109, 34, 120B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 20/21 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Petitioner's contention: The seized amount was legitimate business funds intended for GST deposit and not the proceeds of extortion or any criminal activity. The petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated. Revenue's contention: The recovered amount from the petitioner's house was indeed proceeds of crime.
Sections Cited
Section 386, Section 387, Section 109, Section 34, Section 120B, Section 201, Section 20, Section 21
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3690 of 2022
Binod Kumar Pandey.
..... … Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand
…. …. Opp. Party
--------
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
-------- For the Petitioner
: Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate
For the State
: Mrs. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P.
--------
04/ 28.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State.
This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant–Binod Kumar Pandey with prayer to release on bail in connection with ATS Case No. 01 of 2022, registered under Sections 386,387,109,34,120B,201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 20/21 of UA(P) Act, 1967, pending in the court of A.J.C. XVIII cum Spl. Judge, ATS, at Ranchi.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged by the police officer with these allegations that he had received secret information from S.P., A.T.S. that gangster Aman Srivastava along with his associates had been extorting huge amount of money as Rangdari from Industrialist
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.