Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 469

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Arvind Singh Son of late Gopal Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Anti-corruption Bureau - Opposite Party
A.B.A. No. 7455 of 2025
Decided On : 24-04-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Shashank Mishra, Advocate Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate
For the Opp. Party :Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate Ms. Sanya Kumari, Advocate Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate

Anticipatory bail in grave economic offenses is denied where the investigation reveals a large-scale conspiracy and the accused exhibits persistent non-cooperation; in such instances, the necessity for custodial interrogation to unearth the truth and prevent potential evidence tampering outweighs the individual's interest in retaining liberty.

Headnote:(A) Economic Offences - Anticipatory Bail - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Prevention of Corruption Act - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Principles for grant of relief - In cases of serious economic offenses involving systemic fraud and misappropriation of public funds, the court must balance the right to individual liberty against the necessity of a thorough investigation; custodial interrogation is essential where the investigative agency demonstrates that the accused played a central role in a larger conspiracy; continuous non-cooperation by the accused and the need to prevent tampering with evidence are overriding considerations for refusing relief. (Paras 1, 6, 12, 15, 17)

(B) Appellate Scope - Judicial Discretion - Discretion to grant anticipatory bail is not absolute and must be exercised judicially, particularly when prima facie materials, including witness statements, establish a complex nexus of criminality; mere parity with co-accused granted bail is insufficient if specific evidence exists against the petitioner. (Paras 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner approached the court seeking anticipatory bail regarding allegations of financial irregularities and submission of fraudulent financial securities to a state entity. The investigation was initiated following the discovery that bank guarantees provided by placement agencies were counterfeit. Evidence gathered during the investigation suggested that the petitioner functioned as a key member of a syndicate, influencing tender outcomes and facilitating the collection of illicit funds. Although the investigating agency issued several formal notices for appearance, the petitioner allegedly failed to cooperate consistently, citing prior engagements in another jurisdiction.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the collected evidence, including statements from multiple individuals involved in the syndicate, explicitly detailed the petitioner's role in the fraud. The court emphasized that the investigation into this large-scale economic crime was obstructed by the petitioner’s failure to abide by investigative summons. The presence of direct evidence, coupled with the necessity to confront the petitioner with other suspects, rendered custodial interrogation vital to the proceedings.

Issues: The main issues were whether the accused is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case of serious economic fraud and whether the petitioner’s failure to cooperate with the investigating authority warrants the denial of such discretionary relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted as a matter of routine in cases of grave financial crime. When the prosecution produces material evidence indicating a well-orchestrated conspiracy and the accused consistently avoids the investigation process, the interest of the public and the requirements of justice mandate that the agency be allowed to proceed with custodial interrogation to ensure truth-seeking and prevent the destruction of evidence.

Result: Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected.

Table of Content
1. nature of fir and involvement in corruption/money laundering offences. (Para 1 , 7 , 8)
2. duty of the accused to cooperate with investigation and the consequences of non-compliance. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 12 , 14)
3. admissibility and reliance on statements of co-accused collected during investigation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 13)
4. criteria for denying anticipatory bail in economic offences and deep-rooted conspiracies. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
5. final determination and order rejecting bail based on prima facie case completion. (Para 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

This anticipatory bail application has been filed in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 09/2025 for the offence registered under Sections 61(2) read with Sections 318, 336, 340, 316/45 and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 7(c), 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 said to be pending in the court of learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi.

2. Arguments of the petitioner

A. The petitioner is an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant at Chhattisgarh and he is not even remotely connected with the entire state of affairs regarding the excise department in Chhattisgarh or the excise department of the State of Jharkhand. However, he is an accused in connection with similar case which has been lodged at Chhattisgarh and he was required to appear in the Court at Chhattisgarh from time to time.

B. The counter affidavit filed in the present case reveals that 3 notices under Section 35 (3) of BNSS dated 07.08.2025, 25.08.2025 and 02.09.2025 were sent through registered covered to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not appear.

C. With respect to each of the notices, he has given the following dates:

(i) 1^st Notice dated 07.08.2025 was received by the petitioner on 17.08.2025 and he was directed to appear on 19.08.2025. He submits that on 20.08.2025, the date was fixed at Chhattisgarh court, and therefore, he responded by saying that he would be unable to attend and another date may be fixed in the 1^st week of September.

(ii) So far as the 2^nd notice dated 25.08.2025 is concerned, the date fixed for appearance was 02.09.2025 and he received the same on 04.09.2025, and therefore, there was no occasion for him to appear and this was also intimated to the authority.

(iii) Thereafter, 3^rd notice dated 02.09.2025 was issued which was received by him on 09.09.2025 and he was to appear on 18.09.2025. He has stated that the same was also responded and the response has been annexed along with the rejoinder to the counter affidavit.

3. However, in spite of opportunity granted by this Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner during the court proceedings, the learned counsel could not show any dispatch of the response in connection with the 3^rd notice under section 35 of BNSS although the reply has been annexed along with the rejoinder to the counter affidavit.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that if any interim protection is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner is still ready and willing to appear before the authorities and is ready to co-operate with the investigation, but in absence of any protection, it is all likelihood that the petitioner will be taken into custody.

5. He has also referred to order of anticipatory bail passed in the case of Binay Kumar Singh by the learned district court vide order dated 07.07.2025 to submit that the co-accused has been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by the district court itself.

6. Arguments of the Opposite Party ACB

I. The learned counsel for the opposite party ACB has opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner was a part of the syndicate, who was involved in the alleged offence. He has further submitted that the petitioner was the person who used to collect the commission on behalf of the co-accused.

II. The learned counsel has further submitted that merely because he is an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant, the same does not mean

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 469

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHIANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.Arvind Singh Son of late Gopal Singh - PetitionerVersusThe State of Jharkhand through Anti-corruption Bureau - Opposite PartyA.B.A. No. 7455 of 2025Decided On : 24-04-2026

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Arvind Singh Son of late Gopal Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Anti-corruption Bureau - Opposite Party
A.B.A. No. 7455 of 2025
Decided On : 24-04-2026