2025:JHHC:24285 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5762 of 2024 ----------- Jayanta Kumar Basu, aged about 59 years son of late Ramendra Nath Basu resident of 6-D Latfath Hossain Lane Block-4 Flat D PO and PS Beliaghata, Dist.Kolkata, West Bengal .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Akhilesh Srivastava, Advocate (Thr.V.C.) Mr. Pratiyush Lala, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. ---- 10/19.08.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through Video Conferencing [V.C.] and learned counsel for respondent State. 2. Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Nirsa P.S. Case No.45 of 2013, [G.R.Case No.659 of 2013] for offence registered under section 420, 120B IPC and Sec. 3,4,6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act,1978, pending in court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1stClass, Dhanbad. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that false case has been lodged against the petitioner and the petitioner is not the Director of M/s Basil International Ltd. He submits that allegations are made that for investment in the said company, the amount has been collected and innocent persons have been cheated. He submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the said company and the petitioner is not the Director of the said company. He further submits that the allegations are made in the FIR that the petitioner is non-Executive Director of M/s Basil International Ltd. He submits that unless it is proved that the petitioner was in-charge and responsible for the conduct of business of the said company, liability cannot be fastened upon the petitioner and to buttress his such argument, he refers to Section 5 and 291 of the Companies Act, 1956 and submits that this aspect has been well settled in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Small Industries Corporation Limited v. Harmeet Singh Paintal and Another reported in (2010) 3 SCC 330. He further submits that it has been stated that notice has not been issued against petitioner under section 41 Cr.P.C. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation and the name of the petitioner is taken by one Anand Kumar Mishra who is said to be Regional Manager of the said company. 5. In view of above and considering that notice under section 41 of Cr.P.C was not issued against the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned court within two weeks from today, and the learned court shall release the petitioner on the terms and conditions as well as sureties as the learned court may deem fit and proper. 6. This petition is disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/