Amareshwar Sahay, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the State Vigilance.

2. The petitioner prays for bail in connection with a case registered by the Vigilance Department under Sections 409, 420, 423, 424, 465 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The allegations, in short in the F.I.R., are that the petitioner, who was a Minister in the Government of Jharkhand in between February 2005 to January, 2009, by misusing his coveted post, surpassed all limits of corruption and amassed huge properties, movable and immovable, committing embezzlement of crores of Rupees in pipe supply scam and iodized salt scam. During the said period, the petitioner purchased landed properties in the District of Ranchi as well as in other parts of the country in his name and in the name of his wife, daughters and son and other family members. In the marriage of his daughter with the son of a Minister of Maharashtra, he spent huge sum of money and it was most expensive marriage in the history of Jharkhand in which he hired six chartered planes. In the said marriage, he gave gift to his daughter of about 5 crores.

4. It has further been alleged that at the time of filing his Nomination Form on 17.01.2005 in order to contest the Assembly Election in the year 2005, he declared his assets standing in his name and in the name of his family members. As per the said declaration, he was in possession of a total properties and assets worth Rs. 9,04,453/- (Rupees Nine Lacs four Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Three) including cash as well gold and landed and house property whereas his wife Madhu Singh possessed cash of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only in the Bank and she had ornaments worth Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) only.

5. As it appears, in course of investigation, a questionnaire was supplied to the petitioner whereby he was asked to give reply to the questions relating to the properties/assets acquired by him during the period he was holding the post of a Minister. The petitioner replied to the said queries. The Investigating officer made investigation and found even from the details of properties supplied by the petitioner, during the check period, i.e. from February 2005 to January 2009, he amassed huge movable and immovable properties worth of Crores.

6. From the list of documents annexed with the Charge Sheet, it appears that in between the period February 2006 to May 2008, the petitioner spent Crores of rupees in purchase of lands, flats, bungalows as well as in the fixed deposits in Banks in the name of his wife, daughters and son. From bare perusal of the list of documents annexed with the Charge Sheet, it appears that a sum of Rs. 1,60,33,788/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty Lacs Thirty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Eight) was spent in purchasing lands at Ranchi, flats and bungalows at Gurgaon in the name of the wife Madhu Singh and huge sum of money was spent in fixed deposits in different Banks at Ranchi, Gurgaon and Noida in her name. Apart from that, cash of Rs. 9,04,453/- (Rupees Nine Lacs Four Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Three) was lying in her Bank account at different places.

7. Similarly, in the name of his daughter Ankita, he spent Rs. 17,17,500/- (Rupees Seventeen Lacs Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred) towards purchase of lands etc. apart from the cash amount in different Banks. In the name of another daughter Manisha Singh, a sum of Rs. 14,55,842/- (Fourteen Lacs Fifty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Two) was spent towards purchase of lands etc. and in fixed deposit. Similarly, in the name of his son Surya Sonal Singh, a sum of Rs. 18,50,000/- (Eighteen Lacs Fifty Thousand) was spent towards purchase of lands and fixed deposit.

8. It is most surprising to see that on one day, i.e. on 18/05/2007, he spent Rs. 22,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Fifty Thousand) in fixed deposit in the name of his son and daughters at Noida. Similarly, on 03/10/2007/ a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lacs) were deposited in the fixed deposit at Gurgaon in the name of Madhu Singh and Manisha Singh, i.e. the wife and daughter. Just two days thereafter, on one day, i.e. 05/10/2007, a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lacs) was deposited in the fixed deposit at Ranchi in the name of his daughter Ankita Singh and son Surya Sonal Singh. Therefore, it appears that in between 18/05/2007 to 05/10/2007, i.e. during 5 months a sum or Rs. 46,50,000/- (Rupees Forty Six Lacs Fifty Thousand) was deposited in different Banks by way of fixed deposits. It further appears that in between the period from 07/02/2006 to 29/05/2008, i.e. within the period of two years and three months, he acquired lands at Ranchi, flats, bungalows at Ranchi, and also two flats at Gurgaon worth Rs. 1,72,65,392/-(Rupees One Crore Seventy Two Lacs Sixty Five Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Two). The above amount does not include the money spent in purchasing stamps and registration fee etc. Apart from such investment, some evidence has also been collected during investigation that the petitioner has also spent a huge amount in shares and debentures.

9. In order to establish the allegations of acquiring the aforesaid huge assets, documentary evidence have been collected by the Vigilance. According to the Vigilance, the wife, son and daughters are all dependents on the petitioner and there is no other source of income of their own and therefore, total money was spent by the petitioner. Whereas, according to the petitioner, his wife Madhu Singh is a partner in a Business Firm namely Satya Sai Enterprises.

10. Mr. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the wife as well as the daughters and son of the petitioner are income tax assesses and they are filing returns of their income since 1984-85 and if all the expenses incurred by them in acquiring the properties are excluded from the income of the petitioner, then it would reveal that the allegations made against the petitioner are all false and baseless.

11. Since prima-facie from the materials collected ruing investigation, it appears that the wife, son and daughters of the petitioner are all dependent on him and, therefore, the amount spent in acquiring assets in their names has been presumed to have been acquired from the income of the petitioner. However, whether those properties have been acquired by the wife, daughters and son of the petitioner from their own source of income, is a matter of evidence, which can be gone into at the stage of the trial only and not at this stage.

12. As per the Charge Sheet submitted in this case against the petitioner, it appears that it has been found that the petitioner acquired Rs. 1,75,15,980/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Five Lacs Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty) by misusing his official position which is disproportionate to his known source of income.

13. From the facts noticed herein above, prima-facie it appears that before the petitioner occurrence the Minister, his financial condition was not such that he could have acquired such huge property during the check period, i.e. when he was holding the post of Minister in the State Government: The financial condition of the petitioner before he became a Minister was not so strong, as it appeal from the declaration made by him at the time of filing nomination for contesting the election of M.L.A., Prima-facie it also appears that the wife of the petitioner is merely a house wife and she as well as his son and daughters are all dependent on him and they have no other source of income of their own subject to what would come in evidence during the trial.

14. From the charge Sheet, it also appears that the investigation is still (sic) and, therefore, there is every likelihood that more evidence may come against the petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature and if the petitioner, who is a politically strong and influential person, is granted bail during the continuance of the investigation, there is every likelihood that he may try to tamper with the evidence and may cause hindrance in investigation by using his influence in order to save his skin. Therefore, in my view, considering the nature of the offence and involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence as well as for the reasons stated hereinabove, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail. Accordingly, his petition for bail is hereby rejected.