JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent CBI. 2. This petition has been filed under section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for quashing the order dated 08.07.2022, order dated 28.11.2022, order dated 07.03.2024 as well as order dated 02.05.2024, whereby the court of learned Special Judge, CBI at Ranchi has been pleased to issue warrant against the petitioner and issued processes under sections 82 as well as 83 CrPC respectively by those orders in connection with RC 08(A)/2017-R pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI- cum- Special Judge, CBI-II, at Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that summons have been issued upon the petitioner on 03.12.2020 and the petitioner has filed A.B.P No.2457 of 2020 before the learned Sessions Judge on 22.11.2020 which was rejected by order dated 04.01.2021. He further submits that against the said order, the petitioner has moved before this Court in A.B.A. No.963 of 2021 which was allowed by order dated 15.07.2021 by coordinate Bench of this Court with condition to deposit Rs.65 lacs to Bokaro Steel Limited and Rs.35 lacs to Durgapur Steel Plant. He submits that the petitioner thereafter moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Cr) No.7065 of 2021 against the order dated 15.7.2021 passed in A.B.A. No.963 of 2021 and the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 23.09.2021. He then submits that the petitioner has also filed Cr.M.P.No.3191 of 2021 on 23.11.2021 before this Court for extension of the order dated 15.07.2021 passed in A.B.A. No.963 of 2021 for eight weeks. He then submits that however the same has been dismissed as withdrawn on 8.12.2023. He next submits that the petitioner has moved before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in W.P.A. No.17203 of 2022 which was dismissed on the point of jurisdiction by order dated 06.12.2022. He then submits that thereafter the petitioner has moved before this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No.4/ 2023 challenging the sanction order as well as the order taking cognizance and the same petition was dismissed by the order dated 01.11.2023. He then submits that thereafter the petitioner has moved before this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No.4/ 2023 challenging the sanction order as well as the order taking cognizance and the same petition was dismissed by the order dated 01.11.2023. He then submits that the petitioner against the order of the Hon’ble Court passed in W.P.(Cr.) No.4 of 2023 moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Cr.) Diary No.49739 of 2023 and by the order dated 15.3.2024, until further orders, the proceeding of the learned trial court was stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and he then submits that finally the said SLP was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 30.01.2025. He further submits that in the aforesaid background the learned court has wrongly passed the aforesaid order of NBW and issued processes under sections 82 and 83 Cr.PC and in view of that the same may kindly be quashed. He then submits that in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 the petitioner is required to be released on bail. He further submits that during pendency of the stay order granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order dated 02.05.2024 has been passed by which process under section 83 Cr.PC has been directed to be issued. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned orders may kindly be set aside. 4. Mr. Prashant Pallav, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent CBI opposed the prayer and submits that anticipatory bail of the petitioner was allowed by the order dated 15.07.2021 based on the undertaking of the petitioner that he will deposit Rs.65 lacs to Bokaro Steel Plant and Rs.35 lacs to Durgapur Steel Plant and in view of such undertaking of the petitioner, with condition, the petitioner was directed to surrender before the learned court within four months. He submits that the petitioner has not deposited the same and even the prayer made to take further extension has been dismissed as withdrawn and against the order of the coordinate Bench in the anticipatory bail application, the petitioner has moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that the petitioner has not deposited the same and even the prayer made to take further extension has been dismissed as withdrawn and against the order of the coordinate Bench in the anticipatory bail application, the petitioner has moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He then submits that the case has been registered in the State of Jharkhand however the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court jurisdiction has been invoked and Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has refused to entertain the same on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and thereafter the petitioner has filed W.P.(Cr.) No.4 of 2023 challenging the sanction order and the order taking cognizance which has been dismissed by this Court and against the same the petitioner has moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Cr.) Diary No. 49739 of 2023 however that has been further dismissed. He further submits that the petitioner was indulged in delaying tactics and forum shopping to evade the trial and the matter is pending since last four years and above orders have been passed only to secure the appearance of the petitioner. He submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders. He next fairly submits that the learned court was not required to pass the order dated 02.05.2024 for issuance of the process under section 83 Cr.PC in view of the fact that at that time, the stay granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was operating. He submits, however, the said S.L.P was dismissed on 30.01.2025. 5. In view of above submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties the Court has gone through the materials on record as well as the impugned orders. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has moved before this Court after rejection of the said prayer by the learned Sessions Judge in ABA No.963 of 2021 and in that ABA the coordinate Bench of this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the payment of Rs.65 lacs to Bokaro Steel Plant and Rs.35 lacs to Durgapur Steel Plant and that order was passed on the undertaking and submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the petitioner has further sought extension to surrender and payment of the said amount which has been further dismissed as withdrawn. The A.B.A order of this Court was challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed. The petitioner has challenged the sanction order before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has been pleased to dismiss the same on the ground of jurisdiction and thereafter the petitioner has moved in W.P.(Cr.) No.4 of 2023 before this Court which has been further dismissed and against that order the petitioner has filed Special Leave (Cr) Diary No. 49739 of 2023. Initially the stay was granted however the same was dismissed on 30.01.2025. These facts clearly suggest that the petitioner on one or another ground, has tried to delay the proceeding. The FIR was registered in the year 2021 and till date, the petitioner has not appeared and even the anticipatory bail was allowed to the petitioner and said anticipatory bail was granted on the undertaking of the petitioner and the petitioner has not complied the same and the same was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the petitioner has also attempted to challenge the order of sanction as well as the order taking cognizance dated 28.11.2022, which has been dismissed upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. In course of the proceeding the Court has asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to move before the learned court by way of filing the proper petition on the strength of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another(supra) however the petitioner on instruction, submits that order may kindly be passed as the petitioner is not ready to surrender. 7. In view of above facts and considering that the petitioner is not ready to surrender before the learned court on the strength of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another(supra) , the Court finds that there is no illegality so far as the impugned orders dated 08.07.2022, 28.11.2023 and 07.03.2024 are concerned, and as such, this petition is, hereby, dismissed, so far as these orders are concerned. 8. 8. However, the Court finds that the learned court was not required to pass the order dated 02.05.2024, as at this time, the stay granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave (Cr.) Diary No. 49739 of 2023 was operating, and as such, that order is not in accordance with law, hence, the order dated 02.05.2024 is, hereby, set-aside, however, the said SLP was further dismissed on 30.01.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. This Criminal M.P., being Cr.M.P. No.1823 of 2025, is allowed, in part, in the above terms. 10. Learned court will proceed further in accordance with law.