2026:JHHC:19496 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 832 of 2022 Bandhu Kumar Singh, S/o Late Chamar Singh, R/o Kulmunda, PO- Silam, PS-Gumla, District-Gumla … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through Anti-Corruption Bureau … … Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Yogesh Modi, AC to AAG-IA ----- 15/03.07.2026 The present Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order dated 10.05.2022 passed by the learned Spl. Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1772 of 2021 in connection with A.C.B. Ranchi P.S. Case No. 05/2018, corresponding to Vigilance (Spl.) Case No. 05/2018, whereby the discharge petition filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case as born out from the record are that on 21.05.2018, one Victoria Bara, Labour Enforcement Officer, Ghaghra, Gumla (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) made an application before the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi alleging that in the year 2017, she had submitted her bill of Travelling Allowance (T.A.) amounting to Rs. 40,000/- before the then Labour Superintendent, Gumla namely, Ranjeet Kumar vide letter no. 466 dated 30.12.2017 and letter no. 71 dated 02.05.2018, however, the said officer demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/- through his staff for release of the said T.A. bill. The said allegation of the complainant was verified by Rahul Dev Baraik, Dy. S.P.-cum- Verifying Officer, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi submitting his report 2026:JHHC:19496 2 to the Superintendent of Police, A.C.B. and thereafter, F.I.R being A.C.B. Ranchi P.S. Case No. 05/2018 was lodged under Section 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1988”). A trap was conducted in the office of Labour Superintendent, Gumla during which, the tainted amount to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, who was working in the office of Labour Superintendent, Gumla as a driver on daily wages. Subsequently, the cognizance of the offence under Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, 1988 was taken against the petitioner and co-accused Ranjeet Kumar. 3. The petitioner preferred an application for discharge before the learned court of Special Judge, Anti-corruption Bureau, Ranchi under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 10.05.2022 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1772/2021 in connection with A.C.B. Ranchi P.S. Case No. 05/2018, corresponding to Vigilance (Spl.) Case No. 05/2018. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main accused of this case is the then Labour Superintendent, Gumla, namely, Ranjeet Kumar against whom the allegation of demanding bribe was made by the complainant. The said accused has already been discharged by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.05.2023 passed in Cr. Revision No. 831 of 2022 and as such, the petitioner may also be discharged from the allegation levelled against him. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per 2026:JHHC:19496 3 the F.I.R, the claim of the complainant was that her T.A. bill submitted through applications dated 30.12.2017 and 02.05.2018 had not been cleared and for release of the same, the then Labour Superintendent, Gumla namely, Ranjeet Kumar had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/-. However, the claim of Rs. 19,900/- made vide application dated 30.12.2017 was already paid to her on 31.03.2018 i.e., much prior to the alleged date of occurrence. So far as the T.A. bill submitted through application dated 02.05.2018 is concerned, the same could not be cleared since the department itself had not received any allotment pertaining to the travelling allowance for the year 2018-19. 6. It is also submitted that the petitioner was working as daily wages driver in the office of Labour Superintendent, Gumla and as such, he was otherwise not a public servant as defined under the Act, 1988. 7. It is further submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge that the amount of Rs. 3,000/- recovered from him was illegal gratification while doing any public duty and hence, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, 1988 is not applicable against him. 8. It is argued that the ingredients of Section 7 of the Act, 1988 viz. demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the petitioner to constitute an offence alleged to have committed by him, are missing in this case since there is no allegation against him regarding demand of alleged gratification. Moreover, he was not even present in the office of the Labour Superintendent, Gumla at the time 2026:JHHC:19496 4 of the raid. 9. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State submits that the tainted amount to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- was recovered from the pocket of the petitioner and had also accepted before the trap team that he had received the same on the direction of the then Labour Superintendent, Gumla. 10. Furthermore, though the T.A. bill dated 30.12.2017 submitted by the complainant was cleared, the same was not paid to her prior to the date of filing of the complaint. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. The thrust of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the main accused of this case i.e., Ranjeet Kumar, the then Labour Superintendent, Gumla has already been discharged by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.05.2023 passed in Cr. Revision No. 831 of 2022 and as such, the petitioner is also entitled to be discharged from this case. 13. I have perused the order dated 05.05.2023 which is quoted hereinbelow for the ready reference in this case: “18. Unless there is material to make out a prima facie case of demand and acceptance, presumption under Section 20 cannot be drawn. The foundational facts need to be established by cogent materials. This is a classic case of official rivalry, where petitioner after failing to implicate the accused earlier in a criminal case for offences under IPC and SC/ST Act, initiated the second round on charges under PC Act. Complainant was nurturing a grudge against the petitioner and the present case is an outcome of it. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance and for the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the view that it will be travesty of justice to put the accused on 2026:JHHC:19496 5 trial on the above materials. --------" 14. In the case of Susanta Kumar Dalei @ Susanta Kuamr Dalai Vs. State of Orissa (Vigilance), reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 889, the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack had dismissed the discharge petition of the appellant. In the said case, the allegation against the appellant was that he, along with other high officials and a private firm, conspired to abuse his official position by allowing them to cut live trees clandestinely, in order to derive monetary benefits for themselves and the firm. The criminal proceeding against the co-accused officers had already been quashed by the High Court, however, the appellant’s application seeking discharge from the case was not allowed either by the Special Judge (Vigilance) or by the High Court. The matter having travelled to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Their Lordships held that the nature of accusation against all the accused persons including the appellant was joint accusation. There was no reason for the High Court to single out the appellant from the other co-accused persons and rejecting his claim particularly when he had claimed parity with the other co-accused persons. 15. It was further held that undisputedly, two co-accused, who were similarly situated and even more prominently placed in the administrative chain of events, had already been discharged by the High Court. A comparative examination of the roles ascribed to the discharged co-accused and the appellant showed no distinguishable basis that would justify differential treatment. Moreover, the principle of parity, which is a fundamental tenet of criminal jurisprudence, 2026:JHHC:19496 6 requires that similarly situated accused persons be treated alike. It was finally observed that when the allegations and evidence against the appellant were not even qualitatively stronger than those against the discharged co-accused, the continuation of proceedings against the appellant alone would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 16. In the present case also, there was joint accusation against the present petitioner as well as co-accused Ranjeet Kumar. The allegation against co-accused Ranjeet Kumar, the then Labour Superintendent, Gumla was that he demanded illegal gratification from the complainant in lieu of release of her T.A. bill. An FIR was also lodged against the said co-accused Ranjeet Kumar. The only allegation against the petitioner was that the bribe amount was recovered from him. It is, however, important to note that the main accused of this case namely, Ranjeet Kumar, the then Labour Superintendent, Gumla, has already been discharged from the case vide order dated 05.05.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 831 of 2022. 17. The State has not been able to distinguish the case of the petitioner from the case of co-accused Ranjeet Kumar. Moreover, from the fact of the case, it is evident that the case against the petitioner is even qualitatively weaker than the case of Ranjeet Kumar as he was the main accused in this case. Even otherwise, since the main accused has already been discharged from the case, any attempt to distinguish the case of the petitioner from that of said co-accused is bound to fail. Thus, the continuation of the trial against the present petitioner would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2026:JHHC:19496 7 18. This Court vide order dated 12.06.2026, had directed the counsel for the State to obtain instruction as to whether any appeal has been preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order dated 05.05.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 831 of 2022. However, till date, the State has not brought on record any such fact. 19. Under the said circumstance, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served in putting the petitioner to trial, particularly when the main accused of this case Ranjeet Kumar has already been discharged. 20. Hence, the impugned order dated 10.05.2022 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1772/2021 arising out of A.C.B. Ranchi P.S. Case No. 05/2018, corresponding to Vigilance (Spl.) Case No. 05/2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is hereby discharged from this case. 21. The present Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed. 22. All the pending I.As, if any, are also disposed of. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 03, 2026 Manish Uploaded on 03.07.2026