Harish Chandra Mishra, J.@mdashBoth these applications arise out of the same case, as such, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the CBI.
3. Petitioners have been made accused in connection with R.C. 2(S)/2012-AHD-R, for the offence under Sections 171-E, 188, 120-B/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 8, 12, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
4. Previously, Namkum P.S. Case No. 58 of 2012 was instituted, on the basis of the self statement of S.I. Rajdev Singh, which shows that on 30.3.2012, there was election for Rajya Sabha and Income Tax Department was informed that heavy cash was being brought from Jamshedpur to Ranchi for purchasing the MLAs for the election to the seats of Rajya Sabha. On the said information, one Innova vehicle was intercepted by the police, which was coming from Jamshedpur side and from the said Innova vehicle, Rs. 2 crore 15 lakh were recovered by the police. The person, who was on Innova vehicle, disclosed his name as Sudhansu Tripathy and he claimed to be the Assistant Manager of M/s. Sah Sponge & Power Ltd., Jamshedpur, who informed that the said cash was given by the Director of the said Company for being delivered at the Ford Icon Showroom at Ranchi. The police case was instituted alleging that the recovered money was to be used for purchasing the voters in the election, and investigation was taken up. The petitioners were not made accused in the said police case.
5. Subsequently, PILs were filed in this Court and by order dated 5.4.2012 passed in WP(PIL) Nos. 1801 and 1802 of 2012, the investigation of the said Namkum P.S. Case No. 58 of 2012 was handed over to the CBI, and this is how the present case was instituted by the CBI. Subsequently, after investigation, the charge-sheet has been submitted by the CBI, in which both the petitioners have also been made accused.
6. So far as these petitioners are concerned, it is stated in the charge-sheet submitted by the CBI, which has been brought on record as Annexure-2, that the investigation disclosed that Jharkhand Legislative Assembly had strength of 81 Members and none of the major political parties, which fielded its candidates in the election, had decisive majority to win the election on their own. The political situation thus favoured the independent candidates to try their luck in the election. The investigation further revealed that ten Members of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) political party proposed nomination of R.K. Agarwal, an independent candidate, on 19th March 2012, including the petitioner Sita Soren, whereas the said party had also fielded Sri Sanjeev Kumar as their own party candidate. The investigation further revealed that Sita Soren had directed her two assistants, namely, Vikash Kumar and Jaykant Kumar to call on R.K. Agarwal in Hotel Radisson Blu, Ranchi, on 18th March 2012. Both of them met R.K. Agarwal at the hotel, where R.K. Agrawal, in course of telephonic conversation on the mobile phone of Vikash Kumar, asked Sita Soren to receive Rs. 30 lacs from him, whereupon, Sita Soren told him to pay Rs. 50 lacs as advance for proposing his nomination and directed Vikash Kumar not to receive the amount of Rs. 30 lacs. In the evening of 18th March 2012, Sita Soren again asked her assistants to receive the bag at the residence of Sri Nalin Soren, where the bag was delivered and received. Most of the MLAs of JMM party other then Sri Hemant Soren were also present there. Thereafter, Sita Soren, on her way back to her residence, delivered the said bag to the petitioner Rajendra Mandal in the Airport road. Investigation further revealed that Sita Soren again received Rs. 1 crore from R.K. Agarwal in the evening of 29th March 2012 at the Hotel Radisson Blu and the bag was brought to her residence. In the morning of 30th March 2012 the said bag was taken by the father of Sita Soren on a vehicle from her residence to Bhubneshwar, via Jamshedpur. The witnesses also disclosed that they had seen R.K. Agarwal at the residence of Sita Soren on several occasions after the election was countermanded. It was also found during investigation that R.K. Agarwal had requested the witnesses for getting back his Rs. 1.5 crore from Sita Soren, as she did not vote in his favour, whereupon Sita Soren had refused audience to R.K. Agarwal and also declined to refund the money. During investigation, it was found that huge expenses were made by Sita Soren towards the school fees of her daughters. In the charge-sheet, it is concluded that R.K. Agarwal had bribed Sita Soren for getting his nomination proposed and for getting the vote from her. Sita Soren, thus, fraudulently and dishonestly obtained illegal gratification of Rs. 50 lacs from R.K. Agarwal for proposing his nomination and Rs. 1 crore for voting in his favour. After the local electronic channels flashed the news of recovery of cash of Rs. 2.15 crore from the relative of R.K. Agarwal, Sita Soren like others did not vote in favour of R.K. Agarwal. Investigation also revealed that 10 Members of Jharkhand Legislative Assembly proposed the nomination of Pawan Kumar Dhoot, another independent candidate. It may be stated that there is also allegation that this Pawan Kumar Dhoot had also paid Rupees two crore fifty lakhs to the petitioner Sita Soren through the petitioner Rajendra Mandal.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. It has also been submitted that the main accused R.K. Agarwal, from whose relative, there was recovery of Rs. 2.15 crores and the police case was instituted, as also there is allegation against whom to have bribed the MLAs, has already been granted bail by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India by order dated 5.5.2014 in SLA (Cr) No. 7046 of 2013, finding that the trial shall take a lot of time to be completed and the said petitioner was in custody since 14.5.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioners has brought on record the documents of bank transactions to show that the fees of the daughters of the petitioner Sita Soren had been paid through bank transactions, out of her own account or from the account of her father, who is a retired employee of IOCL. Learned counsel also submitted that whatever allegations are there against these petitioners, they have been made by those witnesses, against whom the petitioner Sita Soren had some animosity and they were also removed from the services of the petitioner Sita Soren, due to which they have made these wild allegations against these petitioners. It has also been submitted that there is no recovery of any money either from the petitioner Rajendra Mandal, or from the petitioner Sita Soren or any of her relatives. Learned counsel accordingly, prayed for bail to the petitioners, submitting that the petitioner Sita Soren is in custody since 25.2.2014, whereas the petitioner Rajendra Mandal is in custody since 10.3.2014.
8. Learned counsel for the CBI on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has drawn the attention of this Court towards the statements of the three witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., on the basis of which, according to him, the allegations against the petitioners stand substantiated. The first statement is that of Jaykant Kumar, wherein he has stated that he came in contact with Sita Soren in the year 1990 and he was working for her. This witness has stated that the election for two seats of Rajya Sabha was to be undertaken, and on 17.3.2012 a phone call was received from Nalin Soren informing that R.K. Agarwal was a candidate for Rajya Sabha and a meeting shall be held at the residence of Nalin Soren in the same evening. Sita Soren reached the residence of Nalin Soren, where this witness had also gone along with other attendants of the petitioner Sita Soren, but they were asked to remain outside the gate. This witness has stated that in the said meeting, 17 MLAs of JMM party except Sri Hemant Soren were present. After coming out of the meeting, the witness was informed that it was decided in the meeting to vote in favour of R.K. Agarwal, for which money was to be given to the MLAs present in the meeting. On 18.3.2012, Sita Soren asked this witness and Vikash Singh to go to Hotel Radisson Blu, where R.K. Agarwal was staying, whereupon, they went to the hotel and met R.K. Agarwal, who informed them about the agreement to pay Rs. 1.5 crores to all the all the MLAs for favouring him in the election. As the attempt of R.K. Agarwal to contact Sita Soren through his own mobile failed, he talked with Sita Soren on the mobile of Vikash Kumar and he said that presently he had only 30 lacs rupees, which he was ready to give, but Sita Soren replied that she would accept only rupees 50 lacs. On 18.3.2012 itself, Sita Soren herself went to the house of Mathura Mahto in the night at about 11 PM. After coming out of the said house, she went to Airport road, where she handed over a bag containing the money to the petitioner Rajendra Mandal and thereafter she went to her official residence. Again on 30.3.2012 (sic should be 29.3.2012), the petitioner Sita Soren went to Hotel Radisson Blu to meet R.K. Agarwal, where R.K. Agarwal gave rupees one crore in a bag. Again on 30.3.2012, this witness went to the house of Sita Soren in the morning, when the bag containing rupees one crore was kept in the car of the father of petitioner Sita Soren, who took it to Bhubneshwar. This witness has also stated that on 30.3.2012, the petitioner Rajendra Mandal came to the house of petitioner Sita Soren along with other persons and he informed that he had taken Rupees two crore fifty lacs from other candidate Pawan Kumar Dhoot.
9. The second statement is of Vikas Kumar, who is another attendant of Sita Soren. This witness has stated that on 16.3.2012, there was meeting at the house of Nalin Soren, which was attended by all the 17 MLAs of JMM party, except Sri Hemant Soren. The said meeting was being chaired by Siman Marandi and Nalin Soren, who introduced R.K. Agarwal, and requested all the MLAs to vote for him. It was agreed in the meeting that all the MLAs would be paid rupees one and half crore each by R.K. Agarwal for the same. In the meantime, an agent of another candidate Pawan Dhoot also came and he offered rupees one crore more than the other candidate. This witness has stated that there was meeting between Mathura Mahto and the said agent, in which he offered rupees five crore to Mathura Mahto and Rupees 2.5 crore to each MLA, who would vote in his favour. Again on, 17.3.2012, all the 17 MLAs of the JMM party met at the house Nalin Soren and meeting was chaired by Mathura Mahto and Nalin Soren, in which, the Members had agreed to vote for Pawan Dhoot also. On 18.3.2012, there was talk between R.K. Agarwal and the petitioner Sita Soren, who offered her the payment of Rupees fifty lacs. Whereupon, Sita Soren asked Jaykant Kumar and this witness to go to R.K. Agarwal for collecting the money. They went to Hotel Radisson Blu and met R.K. Agarwal, where it was informed by R.K. Agarwal that he had agreed to pay Rupees one crore fifty lacs to each MLA of JMM party for favouring him in the election. This witness has also stated about the talk between R.K. Agarwal and Sita Soren, in which he had initially offered only Rs. 30 lacs, which Sita Soren had refused to accept. He has stated that on 18.3.2012, all the MLAs of JMM met at the house of Nalin Soren, where all of them, including Sita Soren were paid Rs. 50 lacs each. Thereafter, she went to Airport road, where the petitioner Rajendra Mandal was waiting for her and the bag containing Rs. 50 lacs was given to Rajendra Mandal and thereafter she went back to her house. This witness has also stated that on 29.3.2012, all the MLAs of JMM party again met at the house of Nalin Soren, where they were given Rs. 1 crore each, some of them were given the money at the house of Nalin Soren and some of them were given money at Hotel Radisson Blu. The petitioner Sita Soren, was given the money at Hotel Radisson Blu, which was brought at her house and on the next day, the said bag was kept in the vehicle of the father of the petitioner Sita Soren, who took it to Bhubneshwar.
10. The third statement is of witness Badal Chandra Mahto, who was the driver of Sita Soren and he has also supported the money transactions between R.K. Agarwal and Sita Soren. This witness has also stated that the bag was handed over to him, which he kept in the car, but he did not see what was there in the bag but he learnt that it contained money. Thereafter, they came to Airport road, where the bag kept in the car, was given to the petitioner Rajendra Mandal. This witness has also stated that on 29.2.2012, in the night, they went to the hotel, where one person handed over a bag to him and asked him to keep it in the car. Petitioner Sita Soren was also in the car. Sita Soren asked this witness to keep the bag in the car. In the morning, he, at the direction of petitioner Sita Soren, kept the bag in the car of her father and thereafter, he was asked to go back to his house and subsequently, he was removed from service.
11. Learned counsel for the CBI has also placed reliance upon the statement of one Pramod Kumar Pandey @ Mantu Pandey, who has also supported the case of the CBI and he has also stated that when R.K. Agarwal demanded back his money, no audience was given to him.
12. Placing reliance on these statements, learned counsel for the CBI has submitted that there are very positive evidences of transactions of Rs. 1.50 crores between R.K. Agarwal and the petitioner Sita Soren. It has also been submitted that these witnesses have also stated that out of the said amount, Rs. 50 lacs was given by the petitioner Sita Soren to the petitioner Rajendra Mandal and one witness has also stated that the petitioner Rajendra Mandal had received Rs. 2.50 crore from the other candidate Pawan Dhoot for favouring him in the election. Learned counsel has submitted that in view of these positive evidences against both the petitioners, the charge-sheet has been submitted against them. Learned counsel for the CBI has also submitted that the petitioners are likely to tamper the evidence collected by the CBI, in view of the fact that all the witnesses have been removed by the petitioner and the criminal cases have also been lodged against them by the petitioner Sita Soren, in which after investigation the police has submitted the final forms. It has also been submitted that there was an attempt to kidnap one witness by the petitioner, for which also a separate case was filed against the petitioner, but in the said case, the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court.
13. After having heard learned counsels for both the sides, I find that the petitioners have been made accused in this case mainly on the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. One of the witnesses Jaykant Kumar has stated that on 17.3.2012, there was a meeting at the house of Nalin Soren, in which 17 MLAs of JMM were also present and it was decided to vote in favour of R.K. Agarwal, for which money was to be given to them. This witness has again stated that on 18.3.2012, the first installment was given to the petitioner Sita Soren at the house of Matura Mahto. Similar is the statement of Vikash Singh, who has also stated that a meeting was held on 16.3.2012 at the house of Nalin Soren, which was attended by all the 17 MLAs of JMM party and the said meeting was chaired by Siman Marandi and Nalin Soren, in which it was decided that all the Members would be given Rs. 1.50 crore each for favouring R.K. Agarwal. Again this witness has stated that Mathura Mahto was offered Rs. 5 crore by the another candidate, who also offered Rs. 2.5 crore to each MLA if they favoured him in the election. This witness again stated that there was meeting in the house of Nalin Soren on 17.3.2012 again, in which all 17 MLAs of JMM party were present and the meeting was being presided over by Mathura Mahto and Nalin Soren, in which the proposal of the other candidate Pawan Kumar Dhoot was also proposed and all the 17 MLAs were given 1.5 crore rupees each by R.K. Agarwal. When a question was put to the learned counsel for the CBI by the Court, as to whether the MLAs, namely, Nalin Soren, Mathura Mahto, Siman Marandi and the other MLAs of JMM party, against whom these witnesses have clearly stated that they were also paid Rs. 1.5 crore, have been made accused or not, learned counsel admitted that they have been not made accused in this case. It is an admitted fact that some of these MLAs are holding the posts of Ministers in the present Government also. Learned counsel however tried to explain that these MLAs have not been made accused in this case in view of the fact that there is no evidence against them that actually the money was given to them, and has submitted that the witnesses have stated the money was handed over in the bags to the petitioners and the petitioner Rajendra Mandal had also stated to have received Rs. 2.5 crores. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that in view of the fact that there is no such evidence against these MLAs and Ministers, they have not been made accused in this case. Learned counsel however could not point out anything to show as to what materials were collected during investigation pointing towards the non-involvement of those MLAs of the JMM party.
14. The submission of the learned counsel for the CBI is quite unacceptable to this Court. If the petitioners Sita Soren and Rajendra Mandal have been made accused in this case only on the basis of the statements of these three witnesses, who have only stated that the money was given to them, actually these witnesses have also clearly stated that the money was given to all the 17 MLAs of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha Party. In that view of the matter, it is quite unacceptable a submission that there is no evidence against those MLAs of JMM party. In my considered view exactly the same evidence is against the petitioner, which is available against the other MLAs of JMM party, in view of the fact that admittedly there is no recovery of the money, and there is no other material, corroborating the statements of these witnesses. There is only the statement of these witnesses against these petitioners, which is also there against the other sixteen MLAs of the JMM party, nothing more, nothing less. There is absolutely no explanation as to why this double standard has been adopted by the CBI, which is not at all expected from the most relied upon investigating agency of the Country. Indeed the charge-sheet submitted by the CBI shows that the investigation revealed the involvement of the other MLAs also. I also find that the main accused R.K. Agarwal has already been granted bail by the Supreme Court of India. In these facts and circumstances, I am inclined to release the petitioners also on bail.
15. Accordingly, both the petitioners, Sita Soren and Rajendra Mandal, are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, in connection with R.C. 2(S)/2012-AHD-R.
16. It is directed that the petitioners, if having passports, they shall surrender their passports in the Court below and they shall not leave the Country without the permission of the Court. If the petitioners are not having the passport, they shall file affidavit to that effect. Petitioners are also directed to keep themselves aloof from the witnesses during the trial and if it is found that the petitioners are in touch with the witnesses, CBI shall be free to file application for cancellation of the bail of the petitioners. Petitioners are also directed to cooperate in the trial of the case.
