( 2026:JHHC:19313 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 1458 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1458 of 2026 Prashant Garg, aged about 32 years, son of Yogesh Garg, resident of 1714, Rishi Nagar, Gurudwara Road, P.O. Lodhi Road, P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur, District- New Delhi- 110003 … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sowri Dev, Advocate For the State : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate For the JUVNL : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel ----- 07/02.07.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the JUVNL. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No.60/2024 dated 02.03.2024, registered for the offence under Sections 420, 468, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C. at Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the written report of the informant, namely, Nutan Bharati (Senior Manager), Finance and Accounts, Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited (JUSNL), Doranda, Ranchi, the present FIR has been lodged on 02.03.2024. He also submits that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Basix Engineering Indian-Man Structural (Private) Limited. He further submits that the tender was given to M/s Simplex Infrastructure Limited and, thereafter, the sub- contract was provided to M/s Basix Engineering Indian-Man Structural (Private) Limited vide dated 28.02.2022. He then submits that four additional bank guarantees were deposited by M/s Basix Engineering Indian-Man ( 2026:JHHC:19313 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 1458 of 2026 Structural (Private) Limited in favour of JUSNL and those bank guarantees have been issued by Punjab National Bank, Mandra, Pora Bazar, Hooghly (West Bengal) Branch. He next submits that when those bank guarantees were sent for verification to the Branch, the Branch Manager verified the same to be genuine by his official e-mail as well as through speed post and, thereafter, in terms of the agreement, payment of Rs.29,86,10,745/- was made to M/s Basix Engineering Indian-Man Structural (Private) Limited by the JUSNL. He also submits that the above bank guarantees were sent for extension as their expiry date was 28.02.2024, which was replied by the Bank that the said Branch had never issued any such bank guarantees and those bank guarantees were fake. He further submits that the petitioner has not received any notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C./Section 35(3) of B.N.S.S. and non-bailable warrant has been issued. He then submits that thereafter process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C./Section 84 of B.N.S.S. has also been issued against the petitioner. He next submits that in exceptional circumstances, the anticipatory bail application can be maintained even after issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C./Section 84 of B.N.S.S. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation. In these backgrounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has already been issued and even that has been challenged, however, the process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has not been quashed by the higher Court. According to him, the said process is still existing and in view of that, this anticipatory bail ( 2026:JHHC:19313 ) -3- A.B.A. No. 1458 of 2026 application is not maintainable. He next submits that there are serious allegations against the petitioner of producing forged bank guarantees. According to him, the petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation in spite of calling him to cooperate in the investigation. On these grounds, he submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the JUVNL accepts the argument of the learned counsel for the State and he further adds that there is no exceptional circumstance to maintain this anticipatory bail application when process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C./Section 84 of B.N.S.S. has already been issued against the petitioner and even challenge made to quash that process has not been quashed by the Court. He next submits that the conduct of the petitioner is required to be looked into by this Court that in spite of notice, the petitioner has not yet appeared before the Investigating Officer and he is not cooperating in the investigation. 6. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Basix Engineering Indian-Man Structural (Private) Limited and the allegation against the said firm is that fake bank guarantees have been produced before the JUSNL and on the basis of that, a sum of Rs.29,86,10,745/- has been released into the bank account of the petitioner in ICICI Bank, Defence Colony, Jorbagh Branch, New Delhi by JUSNL. However, later on when the said bank guarantees were sent for extension as their expiry date was 28.02.2024, the Bank has replied that the said bank guarantees have not been issued by the concerned Branch and those bank guarantees were found to be fake. 7. At page 24 of the case diary, it has come that the notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. has been issued. At page 31 of the case diary, it has come that ( 2026:JHHC:19313 ) -4- A.B.A. No. 1458 of 2026 several times, notices under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. has been issued. The bank guarantees, on the first verification were found to be correct, however, on the second verification, those were found to be fake and even the concerned Branch has denied of issuance of the said bank guarantees. Thus, the petitioner’s intention to siphon away the money of JUSNL was there from the very beginning on the basis of forged bank guarantees. The work order was obtained by the petitioner-firm and the petitioner is said to be proprietor of the said firm. There are allegations against the petitioner of taking huge amount on the basis of forged bank guarantees, however, the petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation. The order of non-bailable warrant has been challenged by the petitioner, which is pending before the learned Sessions Judge and, thereafter, process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C./Section 84 of B.N.S.S. has also been issued against the petitioner. 8. There is no doubt that in exceptional circumstance even after issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C./Section 84 of B.N.S.S., the anticipatory bail application can be maintained. However, the Court has to find out whether any exceptional circumstance is made out or not. What has been discussed herein above and seeing the conduct of the petitioner, no exceptional circumstance is made out to entertain this anticipatory bail application after issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C./Section 84 of B.N.S.S. and further finding out the conduct of the petitioner that he has not joined the investigation till date. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the economic offence in the cases of Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 768, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. C.B.I., reported in (2013) 7 SCC ( 2026:JHHC:19313 ) -5- A.B.A. No. 1458 of 2026 439 and Union of India v. Hassan Ali Khan, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 235 and gist of those judgments speak of that 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. 10. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, as such, his prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. 11. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 2nd July, 2026 Ajay/ Uploaded on 3rd July, 2026