[2026:JHHC:3138] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6832 of 2025 Panchanan Sardar, aged about 41 years, son of Sri Madhu Sudan Sardar, Resident of Panchayat- Muria, Post- Kolabira, P.O. & P.S.: Kolabira, Saraikela- Kharsawan-833220, Jharkhand. ..... … Petitioner Versus Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence, Regional Unit, Jamshedpur, through Senior Intelligence Officer, having its office at 2nd & 3rd Floor, Shaurya Trade Center, 159, Dhalbhum Road, P.O. & P.S.: Sakchi, Jamshedpur-831001 (Jharkhand). ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Pasari, Advocate. : Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate. For the DGGST : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate. ------ 05/ 05.02.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the DGGST. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 2360 of 2024, registered for the offence under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act and read with Sections 34, 120B, 174, 175, 181, 182, 191, 192, 193, 195(A), 362, 365, 201, 203, 204, 205, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Economic Offences, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the Proprietor of M/s. Jai Bhole Enterprises., having its place of business at Plot No. 560, Thana No. 155, Halka No. 2, Saraikela-Kharsawan and Khata No. 241, Plot No. 930, Halka No. 3, Thana No. 199, Dugni Industrial Area, Phase-1, Seraikela-Kharsawan and is engaged in the business of Iron & Steel products and scrap and [2026:JHHC:3138] -2- is duly registered with Goods and Services Tax Department bearing GSTIN No.: GSTIN 20KBPPS6888L1ZH and have been furnishing its Returns under the provisions of Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. He next submits that one Gyaan Chandra Jaiswal @ Gyan Jaiswal, who used the identity of the petitioner to create the fake firm and he has misappropriated Rs. 55 crores and odd and he has already been granted regular bail by the co-ordinate bench of this court in B.A. No. 7209 of 2024. He further submits that one Raaj Jaiswal has also been provided the privilege of anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 8095 of 2024. He next submits that the offence report has already been submitted and now the learned court has also taken the cognizance. On these grounds, he submits that the privilege of anticipatory bail may kindly be provide to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the DGGI has opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner has not co-operated in the investigation. He next submits that so far Gyaan Chandra Jaiswal @ Gyan Jaiswal is concerned, he has been granted regular bail. He further submits that Raaj Jaiswal, who has co-operated in the investigation and it has been pointed out by the DGGI on instruction that there is no chance of tampering the evidence by the said Raaj Jaiwal and on these grounds, he has been granted anticipatory bail. He then submits that on 26.10.2023, when officers visited the premises of M/s Kedarnath Trexim Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner was present and escaped from another gate to avoid being questioned, demonstrating deliberate evasion. He further submits that the landowners of both the principal and additional places of business confirmed that no office, machinery, infrastructure, or commercial activity had ever been present at the locations and in the inspection report, it has been further referred that the petitioner was found only as a WhatsApp extract from the phone of a staff member and has no legal or factual validity. He also submits that the petitioner [2026:JHHC:3138] -3- has evaded the investigation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the DGGI further submits that the two accused, as such, Gyaan Chandra Jaiswal and Raaj Jaiswal will nothing to do in light of the allegations made against the present petitioner. He next submits that the petitioner is the proprietor on record of the bogus firm through which the fraudulent transactions originated, however, the co-accused has joined the investigation as required, but the petitioner has never appeared even once despite issuance of multiple summons on 26.10.2023, 27.10.2023, 06.12.2023, 11.03.2024 and 28.03.2024 and even the family member of this petitioner has filed a missing report during this period, which further confirms his intent to evade the investigation. On these grounds, he submits that the principle of parity is not applicable to the petitioner's case and his prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 6. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the materials on record, it transpires that the petitioner is instrumental of creating the bogus companies, to which, fraudulent transactions were originated. Co-accused, Gyaan Chandra Jaiswal and Raaj Jaiswal both have co- operated in the investigation and in view of that they have been granted regular bail and anticipatory bail respectively, however, in spite of several notices, as noted in the argument of learned counsel appearing for the DGGI, the petitioner has not responded and he is absconding as when the team has gone to the factory premises, where he was present, however, he has escaped from that place. 7. This is not a case that the petitioner has co-operated in the investigation and after the offence report, the petitioner is being deliberately absconded, in that view of the matter, the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that after the chargesheet, if the petitioner has co-operated and not taken into custody, he is required to [2026:JHHC:3138] -4- be granted bail, however, the facts of the present case is otherwise and this principle will not apply in the present case, as the petitioner is still absconding and further heavy amount i.e. Rs. 55.66 crores of the Government money has been misappropriated upon forming the bogus firms, created by this petitioner and the round chain has been made by the petitioner and other co-accused persons. 8. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, named above. As such, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-05.02.2026 Amitesh/-