New Delhi: The Supreme Court has granted regular bail to a former Deputy Commissioner of Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, booked for allegedly facilitating illegal mutation of forest and government land during his tenure, holding that since the investigation stood concluded, the chargesheet had been filed, and a co-accused had already been granted bail, the appellant was entitled to similar relief on the ground of parity.
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi was hearing a criminal appeal, arising out of a special leave petition, filed against an order of the jurisdictional court rejecting the appellant's prayer for regular bail.
The case arose out of an FIR registered on 25.09.2025 at the Anti-Corruption Bureau Police Station, Hazaribagh, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR followed a complaint alleging large-scale illegal mutation of revenue records and encroachment of Bhudan land, forest land, government land, grazing land, and Gair Majrua Aam and Khas lands by land mafias in Hazaribagh district.
A preliminary enquiry registered in 2015 was clubbed with an earlier enquiry for joint investigation. During investigation, irregularities were found in 33 mutation cases involving Gair Majrua Khas category land, which the prosecution claims to be forest land, with the concerned revenue officials allegedly conspiring with sellers and purchasers to abuse their official position and illegally facilitate mutation of revenue records in violation of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
The appellant was arrested on 11.11.2025 and remained in judicial custody thereafter. The chargesheet was filed on 05.02.2026 upon completion of investigation, following which his prayer for bail before the jurisdictional court came to be rejected.
The Court noted that the appellant had assumed charge as Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh on 26.05.2008 and served till 05.10.2010, and that 23 mutations were carried out between 2011 and 2012, particularly during the period from 20.10.2011 to 21.03.2012. It was the case of the prosecution that the appellant, while serving as Deputy Commissioner, had facilitated or influenced mutation of revenue records in favour of a private person.
The Court observed that a co-accused in the matter had already been granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 10.02.2026. Having regard to the fact that the investigation had been concluded and the chargesheet filed, and that the co-accused had been granted bail, the Court held that the appellant was "entitled for similar relief on the ground of parity".
Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the impugned order and granted regular bail to the appellant, subject to such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional court may impose. The Court granted liberty to the prosecution or the complainant to seek cancellation of bail in the event of violation of any condition imposed, and directed the appellant to appear before the jurisdictional court on all dates of hearing, except when specifically exempted.
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate; Mr. Amit Verma, AOR; Ms. Anukriti Tiwary, Advocate; Mr. Shirish Kohli, Advocate; Mr. Rewant Singh, Advocate; Mr. Shubham Sahota, Advocate; Ms. Aastha Anand, Advocate; Mr. Devesh Ajmani, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR; Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Advocate; Ms. Dorjee Ongmu Lachungpa, Advocate; Mr. Priyanshu Teotia, Advocate.
Case Title: Vinay Kumar Choubey vs. State of Jharkhand, Criminal Appeal No. 3549/2026 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 8589/2026)
