Court Rejects Criminal Revision Petition; Refuses to Condone 1,185-Day Delay in Challenging Charge-Framing Order
Ranchi: The Jharkhand High Court has denied relief to revenue employee Shashi Bhushan Singh, who is accused of irregularities in the mutation of land in Pundag and allegedly extending undue financial benefits to a builder. The court dismissed his criminal revision petition challenging the lower court's order framing charges against him. It also rejected his application seeking condonation of a delay of 1,185 days in filing the petition. The case dates back to 2009-10, when Singh was posted as a Halka Karamchari in Ranchi's Ratu Circle. According to the CBI, the actual area of the land was 35.55 decimals, whereas he had recommended mutation of 39.49 decimals, allegedly to benefit the directors of M/s Sanjeevani Buildcon Private Limited. On February 25, 2021, the CBI Special Court in Ranchi framed charges against him under provisions relating to cheating, criminal conspiracy and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel argued that Singh had been exonerated in a departmental inquiry conducted in 2022. The defence also relied on a Supreme Court judgment dated April 29, 2025, in another case involving similar allegations (Criminal Appeal No. 2293/2025). According to the counsel, the Supreme Court had observed that the role of a Halka Karamchari was limited to making entries in revenue records based on registered sale deeds and initiating the mutation process. The petitioner argued that the same principle should apply to the present case and cited the pendency of the related matter before the Supreme Court as a reason for the delay in challenging the charge-framing order.
The CBI strongly opposed the petition, stating that the present matter relates to a separate FIR (RC Case No. 17(S)/2013-R) and involves different allegations and facts. The agency informed the court that the petition challenging the cognisance order had been dismissed by the High Court on October 18, 2019, and the Supreme Court had also dismissed the SLP on October 1, 2020. The lower court had rejected Singh's discharge application on February 27, 2020, following which charges were framed. The CBI further submitted that the petitioner was aware of the charge-framing order but failed to challenge it within the prescribed period. It also pointed out that the trial had progressed considerably, with seven prosecution witnesses already examined.
After considering the arguments, the High Court observed that the case decided by the Supreme Court and the present matter were based on different allegations and factual circumstances. Therefore, the benefit of a judgment delivered in one case could not automatically be extended to another. The court emphasised that every case must be decided on its own facts and merits. It also found that the petitioner had failed to provide any substantial and convincing explanation for the delay of 1,185 days, relying primarily on the Supreme Court judgment in a separate matter.
Considering the unexplained delay and the advanced stage of the trial, the High Court refused to condone the delay. Consequently, it dismissed both the application seeking condonation of delay and the criminal revision petition challenging the order framing charges. With this decision, Shashi Bhushan Singh failed to obtain relief from the Jharkhand High Court, and the lower court's order framing charges against him remains undisturbed.
