IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 80 of 2025 --- 1. Jai Ram Prasad Singh @ Ajay Singh R/o Singh Colony, Rahargora, PO & PS Telco, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum 2. Rakesh Singh R/o Zone – 1B, Next to Andhra Samiti, Anugrah Building, Birsa Nagar, PO & PS Birsa Nagar, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum 3. Nishita Katriar @ Nishita Katiyar R/o flat no. 3B-MP Apartment, 4A, Santosh Roy Road, Sakher Bazar, Purwa Barisha, South 24 Parganas, PO & PS 24 Parganas, District 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700008 … … Petitioners Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Ranchi … … Opposite Party --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioners : M/s. Jitendra Shankar Singh & Anish Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Anil Kumar, Senior Advocate --- 3/28.01.2025 Heard Mr. J. S. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the CBI. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 20.07.2023 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi in R. C. Case No. 04(S)/2018-EOW-R whereby and whereunder the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner in A.B.A. No. 9404 of 2019 has been cancelled on account of the non-appearance of the petitioners and non- bailable warrants of arrest have been issued against them. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were granted provisional bail in A.B.A. No. 9404 of 2019 subject to the deposit of an amount of Rs. 8,58,50,000/- and the provisional bail was to be confirmed after the deposit of the said amount. Learned counsel submits that the concerned amount has been deposited by the petitioners, but only on account of the fact that the petitioner no. 2 was suffering from liver ailment for which he had to undergo liver transplant operation also, the petitioner no. 2 as well as petitioner no. 1 could not appear before the trial court to receive the -2- police papers. It has also been submitted that so far as the petitioner no. 3 is concerned, she was not aware about the requirement of her presence for receiving the police papers as neither she nor the other petitioners were informed by their counsel and consequently on account of their non-appearance their bail-bonds have been cancelled and non-bailable warrants of arrest have been issued against them. It has been submitted that the petitioners have shown their bona-fide in complying with the order passed by this court in A.B.A. No. 9404 of 2019 and a considerate view be taken since the petitioners undertake that as and when the petitioners are required, they shall physically appear before the learned trial court. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the CBI has submitted that the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 does not speak of any illegality and the entire order-sheet would reveal that the petitioners despite repeated orders passed by the trial court have not made themselves present for receiving the police papers and ultimately the learned trial court did not have any other option, but to cancel the bail bonds and issue non-bailable warrants of arrest to secure their presence. The petitioners who are accused in R. C. Case No. 04(S)/2018- EOW-R registered for the offence punishable under Sections 120 B, 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code had prayed for grant of anticipatory bail before this court in A.B.A. No. 9404 of 2019 and on 20.01.2020, the following order was passed: “Accordingly, on jointly depositing of each demand draft of Rs. 85,85,000/- drawn in favour of the Bank of India, Telco Branch, Jamshedpur, the provisional bail granted to the petitioners shall be extended for the period of further one month and on the petitioners’ depositing the last demand draft of Rs. 85,85,000/- drawn in favour of the Bank of India, Telco Branch, Jamshedpur thereby completing payment of the total amount of Rs. 8,58,50,000/- on or before 29.10.2020, the provisional bail granted to the petitioners shall be confirmed by the trial court till disposal of the case.” Subsequent thereto on the prayer made by the petitioners, modification was allowed and ultimately the petitioners have jointly deposited an amount of Rs. 8,58,50,000/- with the Bank of India, Telco Branch, Jamshedpur. It appears from the order dated 17.02.2023 and its -3- subsequent orders that all the accused persons were directed to remain physically present before the learned trial court and the learned A.P.P. was directed to serve the police papers upon them. However, it appears that prior to 20.07.2023 they have not appeared and on 20.07.2023, the impugned order was passed and the bail granted to the petitioners were cancelled and non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued against them. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioners from which it appears that the petitioner no. 2 was suffering from ailment in the liver and several prescriptions have been appended thereto which would indicate that he had to undergo an operation. Mr. J. S. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though the operation has taken place after the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 was passed, but the disease which was being suffered by the petitioner no. 2 was from much prior to the said date. The petitioner no. 1 is the father of the petitioner no. 2 who was primarily looking after the petitioner no. 2 for his treatment. The prescriptions annexed with the supplementary affidavit do indicate about the serious ailments being suffered by the petitioner no. 2, who happens to be the son of the petitioner no. 1. A common thread also seems to run through all the petitioners as submitted by Mr. Singh to the effect that their counsel before the learned trial court had never intimated the petitioners about the requirement of their presence before the learned trial court for receiving police papers. Though from the order dated 20.07.2023, it is clear that on account of the absence of the petitioners, the learned trial court did not have any other option but to cancel the bail granted to the petitioners and issue non- bailable warrants of arrest against them, but on an overall conspectus of the case and the bona-fide shown by the petitioners in complying with the order passed by this court in A.B.A. No. 9404 of 2019 and the fact that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were engaged in the treatment of the petitioner no. 2 as also a plausible explanation has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners with respect to the absence of the petitioner no. 3 when her appearance was sought for, the order dated 20.07.2023 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi in R. C. Case No. 04(S)/2018-EOW-R is hereby quashed and set aside with a further -4- direction to the petitioners to remain physically present as and when directed by the learned trial court. This application stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) R. Shekhar Cp 3