1 2026:JHHC:14006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1847 of 2026 Rajeev Jha @ Rajeev Kumar Jha @ Rajiv Kumar Jha, aged about 53 years, son of Late Hare Kant Jha, resident of Qr. No. CD 249 Sector-III, Ranchi-4, HEC Colony, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through ACB … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate For the Opp. Party :Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate Ms. Shruti Shekar, Advocate Ms. Nidhi Lall, Advocate --- 04/Dated: 08.05.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioner who is apprehending arrest in connection with ACB Case No. 09/2025 for the offence registered under Sections 120B the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 107, 109 of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding to section 61(2) read with Sections 318, 336, 340, 316/45 and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and Sections 7(c)/ 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 said to be pending in the court of learned A.J.C. VIII, Ranchi. 3. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner A. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that by virtue of order dated 16.04.2026 the petitioner was granted interim protection with a direction that the petitioner would physically appear before the ACB, Ranchi on 22.04.2026 at 11 a.m. as the petitioner had submitted that he was fully ready to cooperate with the investigation, if any interim protection is granted. The said protection was granted in 2 2026:JHHC:14006 2 view of section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. B. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner thereafter duly appeared on 22.04.2026 and on 29.04.2026 in terms of this Court’s order and his statements have been recorded. C. He has referred to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the ACB, Ranchi and has referred to paragraph nos. 22, 23 and 24 of the said affidavit and submits that opposite party has taken a stand that the petitioner during his statement has pleaded complete ignorance regarding vital information of money trail although the petitioner was accountant of one of the companies of the co-accused Binay Kumar Singh i.e. Nexgen Solutions Technology Pvt. Ltd. D. He then referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 20 of 2026 and has submitted that it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that not answering the question of the I.O. would not ipso facto mean that there is non- cooperation. He has then referred to the order passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 1079 of 2024 and has submitted that in the said case interim protection was granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for the purposes of recording of statement and the opposite party subsequently raised a plea that the appellant of the said case was not cooperating. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an accused while joining investigation as a condition of remaining enlarged on bail is not expected to make self- incriminating statement under threat that State will seek withdrawal of such interim protection. E. Learned counsel submits that whatever answers could be given by the petitioner has been given during his interrogation and the allegations made by ACB that there was non- cooperation from the side of the petitioner is completely 3 2026:JHHC:14006 3 misplaced. They cannot force the petitioner to make self- incriminating statements. F. Learned counsel then submits that so far as the merits of the case is concerned, the preliminary inquiry was initiated as back as on 27.09.2024 and neither the petitioner nor his employer were named in the preliminary inquiry. Ultimately the First Information Report was lodged on 20.05.2025 against the 13 named accused amongst them also neither the petitioner nor the employer Binay Kumar Singh were named. He has submitted that the petitioner has been working in the company of the co-accused employer, namely Nexgen Solutions Technology Pvt. Ltd. and has got no concern whatsoever with the alleged offence. Rather, the present case arises out of scam relating to the liquor policy of the State of Jharkhand and the said company is nowhere related to the JSPCL. G. The Learned counsel then submitted that the computers were seized from the showroom of Nexgen Solutions Technology Pvt. Ltd. and not from the possession of the petitioner and the petitioner was a mere accountant working in the said company. H. Learned counsel has submitted that Binay Kumar Singh was granted anticipatory bail by the learned trial court as back as on 07.07.2025 and upon subsequent investigation / seizure a petition was also filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail which was ultimately rejected by the district court itself. He submits that the petitioner being an employee in the company of Binay Kumar Singh, namely, Nexgen Solutions Technology Pvt. Ltd. and has got no complicity with the alleged offence is entitled for anticipatory bail. I. The learned counsel submits that even in the counter affidavit no material has been placed on record by the ACB to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. He has submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner is with 4 2026:JHHC:14006 4 regard to tempering of evidence in as much as certain digital records were found deleted in the computers seized from the office of Nexgen Solutions Technology Pvt. Ltd. He submits that even if this allegation is taken into consideration as correct then also it is bailable offence. 4. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party A. Learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that prior to filing of the anticipatory bail application notice was issued to the petitioner under section 35(3) of the BNSS on repeated occasions. The first one pursuant to which he appeared on 03.06.2025 and subsequently on 09.06.2025 he was asked to submit certain documents which he duly submitted and therefore, there was no occasion for the ACB to arrest the petitioner. B. He submits that once Binay Kumar Singh his employer was granted anticipatory bail, the ACB came to know that he is involved in large scale destruction of material evidence including the digital evidence. He has submitted that pursuant thereto raid was conducted in the showroom of Nexgen Solutions Technology Pvt. Ltd. during the period from 28.09.2025 onwards and huge number of digital devices and documents were seized and thereafter when it was sent for FSL examination it came to light that actually there was destruction of digital evidence from the digital devices. C. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was the accountant working in the company since 2004 and under him 12 to 13 people were also working and during his examination he was confronted with many questions to which he gave evasive reply or refused to reply. D. Learned counsel submits that ACB may issue fresh notice upon the petitioner since as on date the warrant of arrest has not been issued against the petitioner and otherwise also, in case of 5 2026:JHHC:14006 5 non-cooperation, the opposite party has got the right to arrest the petitioner. But, so far as the anticipatory bail is concerned, the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the materials which are being posed against him. E. He submits that for the purposes of collecting the materials, the petitioner is required to be confronted with other co-accused persons and on account of his evasive replies custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. 5. Rejoinder on behalf of the Petitioner A. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in response, has submitted that upon perusal of the entire counter affidavit there is no reference of any material collected against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged offence which is primarily against him employer and other co-accused. He has not submitted that the petitioner is neither the beneficiary of the alleged offence nor has any role in the alleged offence. He has submitted that in such circumstances there is no need of any custodial interrogation. B. Learned counsel has further submitted that if the petitioner is to be confronted to be other co-accused persons, who are already on bail, then under such circumstances there can be no reason that the anticipatory bail be denied to the petitioner as he can still be confronted with the other persons who may be called for further interrogation in the case. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the allegation as indicated against the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is sought to be made an accused being an employee of Nexgen Solutions Technology Pvt. Ltd. working as an accountant in which Binay Kumar Singh, the co-accused is the Director. It has been alleged that in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit that during the course of investigation confidential information was received that suspected accused Binay Kumar Singh was tempering with the material evidence in respect of pending investigation, including mass destruction 6 2026:JHHC:14006 6 of data, resulting into tempering and destruction of digital evidence. Consequently, there was search and seizure with respect to the properties relating to Binay Kumar Singh and the various showrooms were also searched including Nexgen Solutions Technology Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi and several incriminating documents including digital devices were found and it was found necessary that the premises be sealed to prevent tempering of evidence. 7. The digital devices were sent for forensic examination and it was found that there has been mass deletion of data which is a possible sign of tempering or destruction of digital evidence and on the basis of aforesaid it has been alleged that it would be evident that Binay Kumar Singh, who is suspect accused, on one hand, was not cooperating with the investigation and on the other hand was indulging into destruction/tempering of evidence due to which search and seizure operation was required to be carried out. 8. Further, with respect to the present petitioner it has been mentioned in paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner was working as an accountant in Nexgen Solutions Technology Pvt. Ltd. and has direct access to the digital devices data and material which as per the FSL report has been confirmed to be deleted recently and, therefore, the role of the petitioner in deletion of such data is highly possible. It has been alleged that during course of recording of the statement the petitioner pleaded complete ignorance regarding deletion of any data from the digital device and has been giving evasive reply and it has been asserted that hence custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. 9. This court finds that from the entire counter affidavit no material has been mentioned connecting the petitioner directly or indirectly with the alleged offence. It is not the case of the respondent- opposite party that the petitioner is a beneficiary of the alleged offence in any manner and they have specifically made a statement in the counter affidavit that the role of the petitioner in deletion of such data is highly possible. 7 2026:JHHC:14006 7 10. Further, this court is also of the view that if the petitioner is required to be interrogated by confronting with other co-accused persons, he can certainly be put across the co-accused persons who are already enjoying the privilege of bail. There can be no doubt that under any circumstances the petitioner cannot be forced to make any self - incriminating statement. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest by the police or surrender within a period of 15 days from today, the petitioner shall be released on bail and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.J.C. VIII, Ranchi in connection with A.C.B. Case No.9 of 2025 subject to the following conditions: - (i) The petitioner will deposit his passport, if any, before the learned court. (ii) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner. (iii) The other bailor should be his close relative. (iv) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court. (v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation of the case. (vi) The petitioner shall furnish his email ID before the learned court. The prosecution, as and when required, will intimate the petitioner for his appearance for investigation at least three days in advance through e-mail and in case of default of even one day, it will be open to the prosecution to take all coercive steps against the petitioner. 12. The instant application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions. 13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 08.05.2026 Uploaded on:09/05/2026 MM/