Jharkhand High Court denies bail to ex-DC Vinay Choubey in forest land mutation and corruption case linked to ACB probe

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 316 | 2026:JHHC:12346

April 28, 2026 : The Jharkhand High Court has refused to grant bail to former Hazaribagh Deputy Commissioner Vinay Kumar Choubey in a corruption case linked to alleged illegal mutation of forest land and financial irregularities. The order was passed by Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary on April 28, 2026, in B.A. No. 1080 of 2026.

Choubey has been in custody since November 11, 2025, in connection with an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) case registered in Hazaribagh. The case involves charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy, along with provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

According to the prosecution, the case stems from a long-pending preliminary inquiry initiated in 2015, with an FIR eventually filed in September 2025. While Choubey was not initially named in the FIR, his alleged role emerged during the investigation, particularly through statements made by co-accused officials.

The ACB alleged that during his tenure as Deputy Commissioner between 2008 and 2010, Choubey misused his official position to facilitate the mutation of gairmazurwa khas (government-owned forest land) in favor of private individuals, namely Binay Kumar Singh and Snigdha Singh. Witness statements, including that of then Circle Officer Alka Kumari recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, claim that the mutation was carried out under Choubey’s direct instructions despite clear objections that the land was forest land and not eligible for such transfer.

The court also took note of allegations that the vendors of the land were not the recorded owners, raising serious questions about the legality of the transactions. Investigators further claimed that subordinate officials acted under pressure from Choubey to process the mutation.

Financial transactions linked to the case also weighed heavily in the court’s decision. The ACB alleged that over ₹3.16 crore was deposited between 2010 and 2015 in Brahmhastra Education Private Limited, a company where Choubey’s wife and brother-in-law are directors. Authorities claim the company was used to layer illicit funds. The investigation also indicated that Choubey’s expenditures exceeded his known income, with assets and spending totaling around ₹3.47 crore against an income of ₹2.20 crore during the relevant period.

Choubey’s counsel argued that the FIR was filed after an unexplained delay of nearly 10 years and that he was not originally named in the case. The defense also pointed out that the charge sheet had already been filed and that Choubey had been granted bail in another related case. It was further argued that multiple FIRs had been lodged to keep him in custody.

However, the court was not convinced. It observed that there were direct allegations supported by witness statements and documentary evidence indicating misuse of official authority. The court also expressed concern that Choubey, if released, could influence witnesses, including co-accused officials whose anticipatory bail pleas are still pending.

Taking into account the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of evidence collected, and the potential risk of interference with the investigation, the High Court declined to grant bail.

Case Reference : B.A. No. 1080 of 2026, Vinay Kumar Choubey (son of Devendra Choubey) vs The State of Jharkhand through A.C.B. (Vigilance); Counsels: For the Petitioner – Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, Advocate, Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate; For the Opposite Party – Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate, Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate.