2026:JHHC:22591 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3012 of 2026 Abhijit Nag, Son of Jagai Nag … … Petitioner Versus Central Bureau of Investigation … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the CBI : Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, Advocate --- 07/30th July 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with R.C. Case No. 08(S)/2016/CBI/EOW/Ranchi dated 28.09.2016 for alleged offence under Sections 420/406 of IPC and cognizance has been taken for the offence under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 409 of IPC and under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978 and Sections 67, 68 of Company Act against the accused persons including the petitioner, now said to have been pending in the court of learned SDJM-cum-Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dhanbad. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happens to be the Director of the Company, namely, M/s Ramel Pharma Limited; he joined the said Company on 07.05.2012 as Director and resigned from the post after five months i.e. on 01.10.2012. 3. The learned counsel has placed the charge-sheet and has referred to page no. 90 thereof to submit that the name of the petitioner appeared as accused no. 5 showing him as a Director of M/s Ramel Pharma Ltd. The learned counsel has then referred to paragraph 2 onwards of the charge- sheet and has submitted that the FIR was instituted on 15.09.2013 in Chirkunda Police Station, District Dhanbad on the basis of complaint against 14 persons including Rameswar Poddar alleging that the accused persons had cheated the local people by collecting money on the pretext of investing the same in attractive schemes of their company, namely, M/s Ramel Industries Limited and huge amount was collected. 2026:JHHC:22591 2 4. The learned counsel further submits that as per the charge-sheet, Ramel Group collected money from public at large through its three companies, namely, M/s Ramel Pharma Limited; M/s Ramel Industries Limited and M/s Ramel Real Estate and Infrastructure Limited. So far as M/s Ramel Pharma Limited is concerned, it was incorporated on 21.07.2006 and was registered with the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal at Kolkata and the petitioner was admittedly the Director of the said Company only for a limited period. 5. The learned counsel submits that the investigation also revealed that the branches of the Companies distributed brouchers, pamphlets/leaflets of the company showing business area of the company in Real Estate, Packaged Drinking Water plant, Pharmaceuticals etc. and the details of the various investments in each of the Company has also been mentioned. 6. The learned counsel has referred to paragraph 11 of the charge- sheet, which shows a total amount of Rs. 1,84,59,100/- was collected from the local people of Chirkunda under the various schemes. The learned counsel has then referred to paragraph 17 of the charge-sheet to submit that the investigation has also revealed that a sum of Rs. 4,67,000/- was collected under Redeemable Preference Shares Scheme and that M/s. Ramel Industries Limited and M/s Ramel Pharma Limited also issued Redeemable Preference Share Scheme to collect money from the people, which was to be paid upon maturity. 7. The learned counsel has then referred to paragraph 18 of the charge- sheet to submit that a sum of Rs. 8,10,000/- was collected under Secured Non-Convertible Redeemable Debenture Scheme, which was similar to Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures Scheme. The amount which was deposited from the Chirkunda Branch, District Dhanbad has been summarized in paragraph 23 of the charge-sheet, which shows that a total amount of Rs. 42,56,166/- was deposited in the account of M/s Ramel Pharma Limited showing the authorized signatories as Rameshwar Poddar and Sukanta Deb and therefore the petitioner has no role to play in the entire transaction except that he was a Director of the Company, namely, M/s Ramel Pharma Limited for a short period. 2026:JHHC:22591 3 8. The learned counsel submits that none of the documents issued to the investors contained the signature of the petitioner. The scheme wise details of collections, which has been mentioned in paragraph 11 of the charge-sheet, does not concern with the Company, namely, M/s Ramel Pharma Limited. The learned counsel submits that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence except that he was the Director of the said Company for a short period. 9. Learned counsel for the opposite party-CBI has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has referred to paragraph 10 of the charge- sheet to submit that the investigation revealed that the Directors of the accused Company used to hold frequent meetings of the investors and agents and during such meetings, the accused Managing Director and Directors used to deliver motivational speeches. During meetings with the agents/investors, the Managing Director and Directors of the Companies, namely, Rameshwar Poddar, Sukanta Deb, Ramendra Mohan Sarkar, Partho Das, Abhijit Nag (the petitioner) and Anjan Das used to project a rosy picture about the future of the company to ensure the investors and agents that their investments were in safe hands. The learned counsel submits that the role of the petitioner in alluring the investors has come during investigation. 10. The learned counsel has further submitted that the charge-sheet was submitted on 30.12.2017 and cognizance was taken on 02.01.2018. 11. The learned counsel submits that the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned court vide order dated 07.06.2018 in ABP No. 616/2018. Thereafter, summons were issued and ultimately bailable warrant was issued. The petitioner has evaded cooperation with investigation and also arrest for eight years. 12. The learned counsel has further submitted that the records of the case also reveal that the case of the co-accused is split up on 11.03.2024 and the trial is going on. The learned counsel submits that it is a case of financial fraud. The company of the petitioner never had any license to engage in any kind of collection of money and therefore, the money collected in the name of the company was, ex facie, illegal. 2026:JHHC:22591 4 13. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2024) 12 SCC 382 (Srikant Upadhyay & Others vs. State of Bihar & Anr.), paragraph 20 and 30 to submit that the conduct of the petitioner does not call for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and there is ample materials to connect the petitioner with the alleged economic offence. 14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that admittedly the petitioner was the Director of the Company, namely, M/s Ramel Pharma Limited, though for a short period i.e. during the period from 07.05.2012 to 01.10.2012, but the fact remains that the said Company did not have any license to engage in any kind of collection of money from the public and in Chirkunda Circle, huge amount was deposited in the account standing in the name of M/s Ramel Pharma Limited, in which the petitioner was the Director. 15. The records further reveal that it has come during investigation that the petitioner was engaged in alluring the agents/investors by projecting a rosy picture about the future of the company and to ensure the investors and agents that their investments were in safe hands, in spite of the fact that the Company did not have any license to do the aforesaid act. The role of the petitioner has come during investigation and merely because the petitioner claims that no documents, as such, were filed by the petitioner is of no consequence at this stage. 16. This Court also finds that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected earlier way back on 07.06.2018 by the learned court and the petitioner has evaded his arrest. The counter-affidavit also reveals that despite rejection of anticipatory bail, the petitioner did not surrender and continue to evade the judicial process and a bailable warrant against him was issued on 04.12.2019. It further reveals that a bail bond under Section 81 of Cr.P.C. was furnished by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner had given undertaking that he would appear before the Court on 27.07.2022, but he failed to abide by his undertaking and remained absent. 17. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the alleged offences were non-bailable offences, there was no 2026:JHHC:22591 5 question of execution of any bond under Section 81 of Cr.P.C. that too after submission of the charge-sheet. The learned counsel submits that as per the rejoinder, the petitioner has not executed any bond as alleged in the counter-affidavit. He has also submitted that the assets of the Company are being sold by One Man Committee, which has been formed by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, in which Hon’ble Retd. Justice Sailendra Prasad Talukdar is heading the Committee. 18. This Court is of the considered view that the materials collected during the investigation, as reflected in the charge-sheet itself, indicate that the petitioner actively allured investors/agents at Chirkunda to invest in the company, although the company did not possess the required licence and huge amount of money was deposited in the name of the company in which the petitioner was director . 19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail. Consequently, this anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected. 20. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 30.07.02026 Uploaded On: 31.07.2026 Mukul/-