Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets

"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", Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling dated April 13, 2026, suspended the substantive sentence and granted bail to former Jharkhand Minister Anosh Ekka, while dealing with overlapping convictions arising from split chargesheets.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that "many of the allegations in the present case and the earlier case appear to be overlapping," and extended the relief based on parity with a connected case where his sentence was previously suspended.

The appellant, a former state minister, was convicted and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment by a trial court in August 2025 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The conviction stemmed from a split chargesheet filed by the CBI concerning the amassing of disproportionate assets and the illegal acquisition of tribal lands. The High Court of Jharkhand subsequently rejected his application for the suspension of his sentence during the pendency of his criminal appeal, prompting the present challenge before the apex court.

The primary question before the court was whether the appellant was entitled to a suspension of sentence considering the overlapping nature of allegations across two split chargesheets. The court was also called upon to consider whether the subsequent prosecution for the identical set of transactions amounted to double jeopardy under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Overlapping Prosecutions And Double Jeopardy

The Supreme Court extensively analyzed the procedural history, noting that the CBI had filed two separate split chargesheets arising from the exact same initial vigilance FIR. The bench acknowledged the appellant's contention that both prosecutions pertained to the same check period, identical properties, and the same alleged criminal misconduct. Addressing the appellant's argument that this dual prosecution violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, the court refrained from a final determination on merits. The bench held that "this aspect of the case would have to be gone into by the High Court while deciding the pending appeals."

Parity With Connected Case

While assessing the plea for suspension of sentence, the court emphasized the appellant's prolonged incarceration across the connected cases. The bench observed that the appellant had already endured over four years of custody in the previous case stemming from the first chargesheet, where the Supreme Court had previously granted bail. Noting that the appellant had undergone an additional ten months of custodial incarceration in the present matter, the bench found it appropriate to extend similar indulgence to protect his liberty during the pendency of the appeal.

"A perusal of the material available on record would indicate that two split charge-sheets were filed against the appellant... Many of the allegations in the present case and the earlier case appear to be overlapping."

Restoration Of Illegally Acquired Tribal Lands

The court also scrutinized the allegations regarding the illegal acquisition of vast tracts of tribal lands in violation of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. The bench took judicial notice of the fact that properties worth approximately Rs. 18 crores had already been attached by the Enforcement Directorate and confiscated by the Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Despite these confiscations, the court noted that the State Government had not yet initiated steps for the cancellation of sale deeds and reversion of the tribal lands as mandated by the statutory provisions.

Mandatory Undertaking For Bail

To address the issue of the illegally acquired properties, the court attached a stringent condition to the grant of bail. The bench directed that the release would be strictly subject to the appellant executing an undertaking before the trial court within seven days of his release. Through this undertaking, the appellant is legally bound to state that "he shall assist in the process of restoration of the tribal land to its original status as and when required."

The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court of Jharkhand. The court directed the immediate release of the appellant on bail upon the suspension of his substantive sentence, leaving the final adjudication on the permissibility of overlapping prosecutions to the High Court.

Date of Decision: 13 April 2026