( 2025:JHHC:16317 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3030 of 2025 Sahid Khan @ Shahid Khan, aged about 51 years, son of late Md. Mustaque Khan, resident of village-67 Grin Kuli Road No. 17, Zakir Nagar, Near Kerala Public School, P.O. and P.S. Mango, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum presently residing at Park Street Kerai Road Near Seventh House No. 227, P.O. and P.S. Kerai Road, District-Kolkata, West Bengal ...PETITIONER VERSUS Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) …… Opp. Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Nishant Kr. Roy, Advocate For the C.B.I. : Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, Advocate 03/Dated: 20/06/2025 Heard Mrs. J. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, learned counsel for the C.B.I. 2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with R.C. Case No. 01(S)/2016-EOWR for the offence registered under sections 120B read with sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in which charge has been framed under sections 120B read with sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. and under section 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of P.C. Act, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge-II, C.B.I. (other than AHD Scam Cases), Ranchi. 3. Mrs. J. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has earlier moved in B.A. No. 11141 of 2023 which was rejected vide order dated 16.08.2024. She submits that allegations are there to the effect that petitioner who happens to be the proprietor of M/s Temcon has ( 2025:JHHC:16317 ) 2 taken account of cash credit sanctioned to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- on 05.12.2007 and subsequently enhanced up to Rs. 1,30,00,000/- on 29.06.2013. She submits that further allegations are that he also got sanction term loan of Rs. 85,00,000/- on 05.12.2007 and subsequently enhanced up to Rs. 2,70,00,000/- on 29.06.2013. She further submits that for default of Rs. 4,28,36,894/- and the account has been declared as NPA, the case has been instituted. She submits that the petitioner is also an accused in another case being R.C. Case No. 06(S)/2015-EOWR in which he has been granted regular bail vide order dated 09.05.2025 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 2921 of 2025. She submits that the petitioner will not change his identity and he is in custody since 17.02.2023. She submits that other co-accused persons who are borrower and guarantor have already been granted regular bail. On these grounds, she submits that the petitioner may kindly be released on regular bail. 4. Per contra, Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, learned counsel for the C.B.I. opposes the prayer and submits that this petitioner is a flight risk. He submits that so far this petitioner is concerned the case of the petitioner is required to be considered by this Court on triple test of bail so far offence is concerned. He further submits that the petitioner continuously started absconding and evaded his appearance before the learned court to face the trial and non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued by the learned court and later on he was arrested on 01.12.2023 and was produced before the learned court on 02.12.2022. He further submits that the petitioner is having chequered career with regard to identity itself and he has declared himself dead by way of managing false death certificate. Even he has shown ( 2025:JHHC:16317 ) 3 himself as a son of former Judge of Calcutta High Court and further tried to mislead the investigating agency by way of saying that he is practising lawyer of High Court and Supreme Court. He submits that if bail is granted there is every chance of tampering with the evidence and he will again try to hide his identity as he has done earlier. He further submits that he has got instruction that all the prosecution witnesses will be examined within nine months. On these grounds he submits that petitioner may not be granted regular bail. 5. This is an admitted position that the petitioner has earlier moved before this Court for grant of regular bail which has been rejected by order dated 16.08.2024 in B.A. No. 11141 of 2023. Further it is an admitted position that the petitioner has changed his identity by way of filing Cr.M.P. Nos. 1169 of 2021, 1170 of 2021, 1171 of 2021 and 1176 of 2021 hiding his identity and later on he has withdrawn all these Cr.M.Ps. He has posed himself as a practising advocate of Calcutta High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court. He has even not spared the Judge of Calcutta High Court saying that he is son of Former Judge of Calcutta High Court. Considering all these aspects earlier regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court by order dated 16.08.2024. 6. Nothing is on record to suggest that if the petitioner is released on bail he will not try to hide his identity as he has done earlier as indicated hereinabove. 7. There is no doubt that bail is a rule and rejection is exception. However for granting bail any gravity of charge, character and behaviour and other aspects are required to be considered and in view of that grant of ( 2025:JHHC:16317 ) 4 bail is other tests rather required to be considered and those are (i) whether the accused is a flight risk (ii) whether the accused will tamper with the evidence, if granted bail and (iii) whether the accused could influence the witnesses, if granted bail. 8. It is further well known that in economic offences involving the I.P.C or Special Acts or cases triable by Magistrate once the investigation is complete, final report/complaint filed and the triple test is satisfied then denial of bail must be the exception rather the rule. Economic offences constitutes separate class of their own. In criminal courts in general with the trial court in particular are the guardian angels of liberty. Liberty, as embedded in the Code, has to be preserved, protected and enforced by the Criminal Courts. Any conscious failure by the criminal courts would constitute an affront to liberty. It is the pious duty of the Criminal Court to zealously guard and keep a consistent vision in safeguarding the constitutional values and ethos. 9. Considering that petitioner has created his false death certificate to show that he is not Sahid Khan and he has presented himself as a son of Former Judge of Calcutta High Court. He has also hidden his identity in different Cr.M.Ps as stated hereinabove which was withdrawn lateron. The apprehension of the C.B.I. cannot be ruled out. In this background the petitioner is a flight risk cannot be ignored. There is nothing on record to suggest that once the petitioner is granted bail by this Court he will not indulge in the said act to hide his identity. 10. In the order of the Coordinate Bench granting bail in B.A. No.2921 of 2025 this aspect of the matter was not subject matter in view of ( 2025:JHHC:16317 ) 5 that the Coordinate Bench has granted bail to the petitioner in that case considering that other accused persons have also been granted bail. Further, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the C.B.I. that the prosecution witnesses will be examined within nine months. 11. In the aforesaid ground at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. 12. However, if examination of prosecution witnesses is not concluded within nine months as submitted by the learned counsel for the C.B.I. liberty is provided to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail. 13. C.B.I. will take all efforts for earlier conclusion of trial and the petitioner will cooperate in the trial. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/