ANOSH EKKAversusSTATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

          [2026] 4 S.C.R. 593 : 2026 INSC 357

                   Anosh Ekka
                        v.
   State Through Central Bureau of Investigation
             (Criminal Appeal No. 1922 of 2026)
                          13 April 2026
        [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]


                    Issue for Consideration
Matter arose as regards the order passed by the High Court rejecting
the appellant’s application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail during pendency of the appeal, when many of the allegations
in the instant case and the earlier case appear to be overlapping.

                           Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.389 – Suspension of
sentence pending appeal – FIR registered on the basis of a
complaint filed by one alleging that the appellant-former Minister
in the State of Jharkhand and another Minister, while holding
the responsible public office of a Minister in the State, misused
his official position and indulged in extended acts of criminal
misconduct thereby amassing assets grossly disproportionate
to his known sources of income – Investigation assigned to
CBI and thereafter chargesheet filed – Appellant held guilty
for offences punishable u/s.120B r/w s.13(1)(d) of the PC Act,
s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d) of the PC Act and s.120B r/w s.93 IPC and
was sentenced accordingly – Appeal against the conviction
pending consideration before the High Court – High Court
rejected the appellant’s application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail during pendency of the appeal – Correctness:
Held: Perusal of the material available on record indicate that
two split charge-sheets were filed against the appellant, leading
to the institution of two cases – Many of the allegations in the
present case and the earlier case appear to be overlapping – In
the previous case, the appellant had remained in custody for more
than 4 years, whereafter, this Court suspended the sentences
awarded to the appellant and released him on bail – Fervent
contention raised on behalf of the appellant that two separate
prosecutions were impermissible because the allegations in both
594                                                              [2026] 4 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       the cases are overlapping – This aspect of the case would have
       to be gone into by the High Court while deciding the pending
       appeals – However, the fact remains that the appellant has
       undergone custodial incarceration of more than 10 months in the
       instant case as well – Sentence awarded to the appellant in the
       other case involving allegations of acquisition of disproportionate
       assets, having been suspended by this Court, bail granted to the
       appellant in the present case also – Appellant to be released on bail
       by suspending the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded
       by the trial court, subject to the condition imposed – Impugned
       order set aside. [Paras 19-23]

                                   List of Acts
       Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908; Penal Code, 1860; Prevention
       of Corruption Act, 1988; Constitution of India.

                                List of Keywords
       Application for suspension of sentence; Grant of bail during
       pendency of the appeal; Instant case and the earlier case appear
       to be overlapping; Suspension of sentence pending appeal;
       Former Minister in the State of Jharkhand; Holding responsible
       public office of Minister in the State; Misused his official position;
       Criminal misconduct; Amassing assets grossly disproportionate to
       his known sources of income; Investigation.

                               Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       1922 of 2026
       From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2025 of the High Court
       for the State of Jharkhand at Ranchi in IA No. 13857 of 2025.

                           Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant(s):
       Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv., Vishal Kumar, Nikhil Jain, Sujit Kumar
       Sinha, Aniket Bose.
       Advs. for the Respondent(s):
       Davinder Pal Singh, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Rajan Kumar
       Chourasia, Ms. Disha Thakkar, Ms. Astha Singh, Jagdish Chandra,
       Ms. Archana Surve Shinde.
[2026] 4 S.C.R.                                                          595

       Anosh Ekka v. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation


                      Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                            Order

1.    Heard.
2.    Leave granted.
3.    The appellant herein, a former Minister in the State of Jharkhand has
      preferred the instant appeal against order dated 18th December, 2025
      passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi1 in I.A. No. 13857
      of 2025 arising out of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 850 of 2025, whereby
      the High Court rejected the appellant’s application for suspension of
      sentence and grant of bail during pendency of the appeal.
4.    The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that an FIR being
      Vigilance Bureau P.S. Case No. 26 of 2008 came to be registered
      on the basis of a complaint filed by one Kumar Binod alleging that
      the appellant and another Minister, namely, Hari Narain Rai, had
      acquired assets disproportionate to their known sources of income.
      Pursuant to order dated 4th August, 2010 passed by the High Court
      in WP (PIL) Nos. 4700 of 2008 and 2222 of 2009, the investigation
      was assigned to Central Bureau of Investigation.
5.    It is alleged that as against a pre-check asset of Rs. 10,48,827/-,
      the appellant amassed assets worth approximately Rs. 57.01 crores.
      These assets include land in and around Ranchi and a palatial
      bungalow. It is further alleged that after becoming a Minister, the
      appellant floated construction companies and got them registered
      with the Rural Works Department in order to legalise his illegally
      acquired wealth.
6.    It is also alleged that the appellant misused his position to illegally
      acquire large tracts of tribal lands in violation of the provisions
      of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 19082. The transactions were
      made in the name of his wife, Mrs. Menon Ekka, by furnishing false
      residential addresses and submitting false affidavits. The investigation
      further revealed that such illegal transactions were orchestrated in
      connivance with public officials including the Land Reforms Deputy


1    Hereinafter referred as “High Court”
2    Hereinafter referred as “CNT Act”
596                                                           [2026] 4 S.C.R.

                                   Supreme Court Reports


       Collector and Circle Office staff, who facilitated illegal transfers of
       tribal lands despite statutory prohibitions.
7.     It is further alleged that the appellant floated firms such as M/s
       Mahamaya Construction and M/s Ekka Construction Pvt. Ltd., in
       which his wife was the major shareholder, and later got these firms
       registered as Class-I contractors despite not fulfilling the eligibility
       criteria. These firms were awarded lucrative government contracts
       by departments which were under the direct control of the appellant,
       thereby conferring undue pecuniary advantage.
8.     Upon completion of investigation, the CBI submitted a chargesheet
       dated 11th December, 2012 against the appellant and other accused
       persons for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 193 and
       420 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 and Sections 13(2) read with
       13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19884, on the basis of
       which the appellant was put to trial in R.C. Case No. 04(A)/2010-
       AHD-R(B) The appellant was ultimately held guilty for offences
       punishable under Section 120B read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC
       Act, 1988, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act,
       1988 and Section 120B read with Section 193 IPC.
9.     Be that as it may, the appeal against the said conviction is still
       pending consideration before the High Court of Jharkhand. The
       sentence awarded to the appellant in the said case was suspended
       by this Court and he was granted bail vide order dated 28th April,
       2023 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 5004 of 2023.
10. The CBI thereafter submitted a separate charge-sheet leading to the
    institution of R.C. Case No. 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(C), out of which the
    present proceedings arise. In the said case, the appellant was tried
    and convicted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 29th
    August, 2025 for offences punishable under Section 120B read with
    Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988, Section 13(2) read with Section
    13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 and Section 120B read with Section 193
    IPC, and vide order dated 30th August, 2025, he was sentenced to
    undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years each for the offences
    under the PC Act, 1988 along with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, and



3    For short, “IPC”
4    Hereinafter referred as “PC Act, 1988”
[2026] 4 S.C.R.                                                      597

     Anosh Ekka v. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation


     rigorous imprisonment of two years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the
     offence under Section 120B read with Section 193 IPC, with all
     sentences directed to run concurrently.
11. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.
    850 of 2025, which is pending consideration before the High Court.
    The application for suspension of sentence filed therein came to be
    rejected by order dated 18th December, 2025, and being aggrieved
    of such rejection, the appellant has approached this Court by way
    of the present appeal by special leave.
12. Shri Siddharth Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the
    appellant, contended that the land in question has already been
    seized by the Enforcement Directorate. Furthermore, properties/
    assets of the appellant valuing approximately Rs. 18 crores stand
    attached and seized under orders passed by the adjudicating authority
    in proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate.
13. He submitted that two separate chargesheets have been filed by
    splitting the original Vigilance P.S. Case No. 26 of 2008, though
    the allegations pertain to the same check period, same set of
    transactions and alleged acquisition of disproportionate assets by
    indulging in criminal misconduct during the self-same period. It was
    pointed out that even in the earlier trial, the appellant was alleged
    to have acquired properties worth approximately Rs. 57.01 crores
    in the name of his wife, Mrs. Menon Ekka, including properties at
    serial nos. 1 to 15, and that the very same properties, as reflected
    in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the trial Court judgment, have again been
    made the subject matter of prosecution in the split chargesheet. The
    same sets of properties have been referred to in both R.C. Case
    No. 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(B) and the present case, i.e., R.C. Case
    No. 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(C), thereby indicating that both prosecutions
    arise out of overlapping set of identical allegations.
14. It was further urged that the appellant has already undergone
    imprisonment for a period of nearly four years in the earlier case. In
    the present case also, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
    imprisonment of seven years each under Sections 120-B read with
    13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988
    along with two years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 120-B read
    with Section 193 IPC, which, according to the appellant, tantamounts
    to a dual punishment for the same set of allegations thereby being
598                                                       [2026] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


       in the teeth of right against double jeopardy as guaranteed under
       Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
15. Shri Dave also pointed out that the tribal lands involved in the case
    have already been ordered to be confiscated by the Special Court
    under the PMLA vide judgment dated 21st March, 2020. The appellant
    and his family members undertake to extend full cooperation in
    restoring the land to its original status. It was contended that there
    is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in the near future and,
    considering that the maximum sentence awarded is seven years,
    the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency
    of the appeal.
16. Per contra, Shri Davinder Pal Singh, learned Additional Solicitor
    General appearing for the respondent-CBI, vehemently opposed
    the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. He submitted
    that the appellant, while holding the responsible public office of a
    Minister in the State of Jharkhand, misused his official position and
    indulged in extended acts of criminal misconduct thereby amassing
    assets grossly disproportionate to his known sources of income. He
    contended that the allegations against the appellant are grave in
    nature and, therefore, he does not deserve the indulgence of bail.
17. However, referring to the reply to additional queries made by this
    Court, Shri Singh conceded that substantial assets of the appellant
    valuing nearly Rs.18 crores have already been attached, and such
    attachment stands confirmed by the adjudicating authority. He also
    submitted that the tribal land in question has been confiscated. It
    was, however, pointed out that till date, no steps have been taken
    by the State Government for cancellation of the sale deeds and
    reversion of the tribal land in terms of the provisions of the CNT Act.
18. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
    advanced at Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment.
19. A perusal of the material available on record would indicate that
    two split charge-sheets were filed against the appellant arising from
    Vigilance P.S. Case No. 26 of 2008, leading to the institution of R.C.
    Case No. 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(B) and R.C. Case No. 04(A)/2010-AHD-
    R(C). Many of the allegations in the present case and the earlier case
    appear to be overlapping. In the previous case, the appellant had
    remained in custody for more than 4 years, whereafter, this Court
[2026] 4 S.C.R.                                                        599

     Anosh Ekka v. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation


     suspended the sentences awarded to the appellant and released
     him on bail.
20. A fervent contention has been raised on behalf of the appellant
    that two separate prosecutions were impermissible because the
    allegations in both the cases are overlapping. This aspect of the
    case would have to be gone into by the High Court while deciding
    the pending appeals. However, the fact remains that the appellant
    has undergone custodial incarceration of more than 10 months in
    the present case as well. The sentence awarded to the appellant in
    the other case involving allegations of acquisition of disproportionate
    assets, having been suspended by this Court, we are inclined to
    grant bail to the appellant in the present case also.
21. Accordingly, we direct that the appellant shall be released on bail
    by suspending the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded
    by the trial Court, subject to the condition that the appellant files an
    undertaking before the trial Court within 7 days of his release, stating
    that he shall assist in the process of restoration of the tribal land to
    its original status as and when required. The release of the appellant
    on bail shall further be subject to such other terms and conditions
    as the trial Court may deem fit to impose and upon furnishing bail
    bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
22. The impugned order is accordingly set aside.
23. The appeal is allowed in these terms.
24. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain