( 2025:JHHC:33966 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 5390 of 2025 Asheesh Saurabh Kedia, aged about 47 years, son of Vijay Kumar Kedia, resident of Flat No. 301, Ashoka Kohinoor, Vidhan Sabha Road, Khamardeeh, P.O. and P.S. Khamardeeh, District-Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ...... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through ACB, Ranchi .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate For the ACB : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate 07/ 13.11.2025: Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by Mr. Adil Minhaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the A.C.B. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with ACB, Ranchi P.S. Case 09 of 2025, registered under section 61(2) read with sections 318/336/340/316/45 and 49 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 7 (c), 12, 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended in 2018), pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ranchi. 3. ACB Ranchi P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025 was lodged on 20.05.2025, wherein it has been alleged that in July 2023, Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited (JSBCL) engaged two placement agencies for manpower supply at its retail liquor stores. It is further alleged that the said placement agencies: 1) M/s Vision Hospitality Services & Consultants Pvt. Ltd., and 2) M/s Marshan Innovative Security Services Pvt. Ltd., submitted bank guarantees to JSBCL. Later, on account of some violations on their part the bank guarantees were sought to be encashed and it was revealed that those were fake bank guarantees. Hence this FIR. ( 2025:JHHC:33966 ) 2 4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is one of the directors of M/s Dishita Ventures Pvt. Limited (hereinafter referred to as "DVPL"), which is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and dealing in wholesale supply of foreign as well as country made liquor to the retail licensees. He then submits that the Government of Jharkhand had formulated the Jharkhand Storage of Liquor & Wholesale Sales Rules, 2022 for the supply of all kinds of liquor to the retail shops operated by Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited (JSBCL). He then submits that in accordance with the aforesaid rules, the Department of Excise and Prohibition, Government of Jharkhand floated a tender for wholesale license for liquor supply. He further submits that M/s Dishita Ventures Pvt. Ltd., also participated in the aforesaid tender. He submits that the company satisfied the required criteria and it was selected and resultantly awarded ID License for wholesale supply of liquor to the JSBCL. He also submits that aforesaid licence was granted for the period commencing from 01.05.2022 to 31.03.2023 and resultantly an agreement was entered between the parties on 27.04.2022 contained in annexure-2. Thereafter, M/s Dishita Ventures started supplying liquor to JSBCL in May 2022. However, the supply was hindered due to slow sale of material from the shops being run by JSBCL, increasing stock level due to slow sale & expiry of supplied material in 6 months. He submits that license of the petitioner’s company was culminated on 31.03.2023 inspite of that allegations are made against the said company that JSBCL has suffered loss of Rs. 448 crores. He further submits that so far bank guarantee is concerned, that was with regard to another company namely, M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Private Limited and M/s Marshan ( 2025:JHHC:33966 ) 3 Innovative Security Services & Consultants Pvt. Limited and their bank guarantee has been found to be forged. He then submits that company namely, M/s Dishita Ventures Pvt. Ltd was not the man power supplier rather the said company was wholesale supplier of liquor and in view of that the petitioner has been falsely made accused who happens to be one of the director of M/s Dishita Ventures Pvt. Ltd. He also submits that the petitioner has received notice under section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 and has cooperated and has appeared before the Investigating Officer. He also submits that tender committee has scrutinized the document and tender has been provided to the petitioner and in view of that also the petitioner is at no fault and in that view of the matter the anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 5. Per contra, Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Anti Corruption Bureau vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that notice under section 35(3) of BNS, 2023 has been issued to the petitioner however, the petitioner has not cooperated in the investigation. He further submits that in the light of Rule made by the Government of Jharkhand M/s Dishita Ventures Pvt. Ltd was required to submit certificate of three years of Sale Tax, Professional Tax and/or Value Added Tax as well as return filing however only two years certificate regarding those documents have been filed before the Committee and the Committee has provided tender to the petitioner. He further submits that it is an admitted position in the light of report contained in Annexure-C of the supplementary counter affidavit wherein it is clearly stated that for three years those documents have not been filed however, only for two years, those documents were filed inspite of that tender has been provided. He ( 2025:JHHC:33966 ) 4 further submits that in fact Premium Brand Liquor Manufacturers entered into agreement with petitioner/petitioner’s company but till date it has not surfaced during the course of investigation that any Country Liquor Manufacturers entered into agreement with the petitioner/petitioner’s company. He also submits that the petitioner as the director of the company started misusing its position to cause revenue loss to the State Exchequer by non-supplying/delayed-supplying/reduced-supplying of popular brand of liquor resulting into shortfall of the demand of such brand. He then submits that petitioner and petitioner’s company has not supplied the country-made foreign liquor and country liquor. He also submits that in para 292 of the case diary, statement of Niraj Kumar Singh has been recorded by the Investigating Officer wherein he has categorically stated that in Jharkhand for wholesale of liquor, M/s Om Sai Beverage and M/s Dishita Ventures Pvt. Ltd has been selected. In the said selection, no one was allowed to be selected except those who are wholesaler of liquor in the state of Chhatisgarh and for this Mukesh Manchanda, Director of M/s Om Sai Beverages and Ashish Sourabh Kedia, Director of M/s Dishita Ventures Pvt. Ltd, have given crores of rupees as bribe to Binay Kumar Choubey and Sudhir Kumar. 6. In this background, he submits that maneuvering has been made by the petitioner and in view of that anticipatory bail application may kindly be rejected. 7. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties the Court has gone through the materials on record including the documents which has been brought on record. 8. It is an admitted position that that pursuant to tender made by ( 2025:JHHC:33966 ) 5 the JSBL. The petitioner along with others submitted their application in the light of Rule 6(ix) of Jharkhand Storage of Liquor Wholesale Rule, 2002. The companies were required to produce certificate of three years of Sale Tax return, Professional Tax return and/or Value Added Tax return wherein the petitioner and petitioner’s company has produced only two years of those certificates and that has fortified in the light of enquiry report contained in supplementary counter affidavit. In para 292 of the case diary it has come that Niraj Kumar Singh has stated that M/s Om Sai Beverage and M/s Dishita Ventures Pvt. Ltd. have given huge amount for obtaining tender and it is also disclosed that the company was required to supply country-made foreign liquor and country liquor whereas country-made foreign liquor and country liquor has not been supplied which is not denied in course of argument by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Allegation is also there of not supplying liquor in full force and due to that loss has occurred and demand has been raised. The allegation is there of loss of Rs. 448 crorers. Thus the maneuvering made by the company in obtaining the tender is prima facie made out and petitioner happened to be one of Director of the said company. 10. So far anticipatory bail is concerned, recently in the case of “ Srikant Upadhyay Vs. State of Bihar”, reported in (2024) 12 SCC 382 a very pertinent observations have been made with regard to the powers of the Court to grant anticipatory bail and it has been observed in para 8 and 9 as under:- “8. It is thus obvious from the catena of decisions dealing with bail that even while clarifying that arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to cases where arrest is imperative in the facts and circumstances of a case, the consistent view is that the grant of anticipatory bail shall be restricted to exceptional circumstances. In other words, the position is that the power to grant anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of ( 2025:JHHC:33966 ) 6 Criminal Procedure is an exceptional power and should be exercised only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of course. Its object is to ensure that a person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. (See the decision of this court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J. Mannan alias J.M. John Paul. 9. When a court grants anticipatory bail what it actually does is only to make an order that in the event of arrest, the arrestee shall be released on bail, subject to the terms and conditions. Taking note of the fact the said power is to be exercised in exceptional circumstances and that it may cause some hindrance to the normal flow of Investigation method when called upon to exercise the power under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, courts must keep reminded of the position that law aides only the abiding and certainly not its resistant. By saying so, we mean that a person, having subjected to investigation on a serious offence and upon making out a case, is included in a charge sheet or even after filing of a refer report, later, in accordance with law, the court issues a summons to a person, he is bound to submit himself to the authority of law. It only means that though he will still be at liberty, rather, in his right, to take recourse to the legal remedies available only in accordance with law, but not in its defiance. We will dilate this discussion with reference to the factual matrix of this case. However, we think that before dealing with the same, a small deviation to have a glance at the scope and application of the provisions under section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not be inappropriate.” 11. In several judgments the Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of routine particularly in serious economic offences, involving large scale fraud, public money or complex financial crimes. In “P. Chidambaram V. Directorate of Enforcement” reported in (2019) 9 SCC 374, this aspect has been considered at para 69, 72 and 77 which reads as under:- “ 69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail... 71. Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure prescribed by law. However, the power conferred by article 21 of the Constitution of India is not unfettered and is qualified by the later part of the article, i.e., '... except according to a procedure prescribed by law'. In State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia, the Supreme Court held that the right of anticipatory bail is not a part of article 21 of the Constitution of India and held as under: (SCC page 226, paragraph 7) ( 2025:JHHC:33966 ) 7 7.... We find it difficult to accept the contention that section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an integral part of article 21. In the first place, there was no provision similar to section 438 in the old Criminal Procedure Code. The Law Commission in its 41st report recommended introduction of a provision for grant of anticipatory bail. It observed: "We agree that this would be a useful advantage. Though we must add that it is in very exceptional cases that such power should be exercised." In the light of this recommendation, section 438 was incorporated, for the first time, in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Looking to the cautious recommendation of the Law Commission, the power to grant anticipatory bail is conferred only on a court of session or the High Court. Also, anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right. It is essentially a statutory right conferred long after the coming into force of the Constitution. It cannot be considered as an essential ingredient of article 21 of the Constitution. And its non-application to a certain special category of offences cannot be considered as violative of article 21. (emphasis supplied) 72. We are conscious of the fact that the legislative intent behind the introduction of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual, rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights-safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. It cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant under article 21 of the Constitution of India. 77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and ball can be and other judgments observing that granted only in exceptional anticipatory circumstances, In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Biharte, the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC page 386, paragraph 19) 19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran, State of Maharashtra V. Mohd. Sajid Hussain Mohd, S. Hussain and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal.” 12. In “ Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy V. Central Bureau of Investigation” reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 in paras 34 and 35 the economic offences has been considered which is as under:- 34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension ( 2025:JHHC:33966 ) 8 of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations." 13. The White Collar Crimes was the further subject matter in the case of “Nimmagadda Prasad V. Central Bureau of Investigation” reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466 wherein para 23 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country’s economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serous repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal this court, while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under: (SCC page 371, paragraph 5). ‘5… The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. Amurder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even- handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white-collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest." 14. In view of above discussions and considering that the petitioner is involved in well-orchestrated conspiracy and it has come that petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation. The anticipatory bail to the some extent intrudes in the sphere of investigation of crime and the court must be cautious and circumspect in exercising such power of a discretionary nature. Some very compelling circumstances must be made out for granting bail to a person of such type of crime. 15. The allegation of obtaining said tender by way of giving huge money to other co-accused persons. It is an admitted position that even the documents were not fulfilled in the light of terms and conditions of tender inspite of that petitioner has been provided tender. Even the terms and conditions of the agreement have not been fulfilled by way of not suppling the country made foreign liquor and country liquor and due to slow supply of the ( 2025:JHHC:33966 ) 9 liquor the allegations are further there to loss to the State Exchequer. 16. In view of above facts, documents, reasons and analysis the Court finds that this is not a case to exercise power to grant anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed. Dt.13.11.2025 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/-A.F.R.