The requirement to inform an arrested person of the grounds for arrest is a constitutional obligation that, if breached, may vitiate the legality of the arrest.

JUDGMENT

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

This matter was taken up yesterday. Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner had concluded his arguments and, thereafter, Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the ACB had started his arguments, however, the same was not over and, therefore, the matter has been posted for today and Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta has concluded his arguments today and, thereafter, Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh has replied to the argument of the learned counsel for the ACB.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the remand order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in connection with A.C.B. Ranchi P.S. Case No.09/2025. The further prayer is made for quashing and setting-aside the arrest of the petitioner, whereby, the learned Special Judge remanded the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B read with 420/467/468/471/409/107/109 of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding Section of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 61(2) read with 318/336/340/316/45 and 49) and Section 7(c)/12/13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prayer is also made to release the petitioner forthwith from the custody.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) has investigated the matter and the officials of the Excise and Prohibition Department and Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited and two private placement agencies, primarily selected by the Excise and Prohibition Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, namely, (1) M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Private Limited and (2) M/s Marshan Innovative Security Services Private Limited, in collusion, have allegedly engaged in forgery, used fake bank guarantees to tarnish the reputation of the concerned bank, committed fraud, cheated the Government, manipulated documents, and caused financial loss to the State exchequer to the tune of approximately Rs.38 Crores while securing illegal benefits through collective criminal conduct, in violation of prescribed tender and audit regulations.

4. It was further alleged that due to the deliberate omission and inaction of concerned officials, private placement agencies submitted fraudulent bank guarantees to secure contracts for providing manpower to retail excise shops, resulting in a substantial loss to Government revenue, estimated to the tune of approximately Rs.38 Crores.

5. It was also alleged that the officials were knowing the fraudulent nature of these guarantees and intentionally refrained from enforcing them, thereby protecting private parties at the cost of over Rs.200 Crore in public funds. Even after issuing demand notices, the Department avoided recovery efforts, suggesting collusion and institutional corruption.

6. It was further alleged that the agencies have failed to deposit the full amount of liquor sales revenue into the Government treasury. It was alleged that no action was taken by the officials to recover mounting deficits in spite of retail policy mandating monthly assessments and invocation of bank guarantees in case of Minimum Guaranteed Revenue (MGR) and shortfalls.

7. It was also alleged that the petitioner is senior I.A.S. officer posted in the State of Jharkhand; served as the Excise Secretary and concurrently held the position of Managing Director of Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited (JSBCL) and he was having control over policy making, departmental administration and operational execution which granted him authority over the selection, supervision and financial regulation of placement agencies. In the afo