[2026:JHHC:25554] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.7131 of 2026 ------ Sanjay Kumar Agarwal @ Sanjay Kumar Inderchand Agarwal, aged about 47 years, S/o Late Inder Chand Agarwal, presently R/o-49/4, Motilal Nehru Nagar, East Bhillai, P.O. and P.S.- Bhillai, Distt.- Durg, Chattisgarh, also R/o House No.60, MIG Baishali Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Bhaishali Nagar, Dist. Durg Chhatisgarh .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anup Sharma, aged about 53 Years, son of Sri Santosh Kumar Sharma, resident of Manbad, P.O./P.S. Jharia, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand, PIN Code-828111 .... .... .... Opposite Parties With B.A. No.7139 of 2026 ------ Sachin Kumar Agarwal @ Sanjay Kumar Inderchand Agarwal, aged about 46 years, S/o Late Inder Chand Agarwal, presently R/o-49/4, Motilal Nehru Nagar, East Bhillai, Distt.- Durg, Chattisgarh, also R/o House No.60, MIG Baishali Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Bhaishali Nagar, Dist. Durg Chhatisgarh .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anup Sharma, aged about 53 Years, son of Sri Santosh Kumar Sharma, resident of Manbad, P.O./P.S. Jharia, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand, PIN Code-828111 .... .... .... Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Shadab Anwar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar,P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Anish Lal, Advocate Ms. Sejal Agarwal, Advocate Ms. Sakshi Rathuria, Advocate ------ Order No.04 Dated-24-08-2026 Heard the parties. Both these Bail Applications have been filed with the self- same prayer for release of the respective petitioners on bail in connection with Bank More P.S. Case No.280 of 2025 in which after investigation of the case, police has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 111(2) (b), 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023 against both the petitioners and the co- accused persons and cognizance of the said offences have been taken and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions. It is submitted at the bar that the co-accused Rakhi Agarwal has filed a petition for discharge and the case is next fixed for hearing of the discharge application of the co-accused Rakhi Agarwal. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners indulged in continuing the unlawful activity of economic offence jointly with the members of an organized crime syndicate by indulging in criminal breach of trust, forgery and by doing act in a manner with a view to defraud the gullible persons. The specific allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners deceived the informant and his company by making them believe that they are the owners of four properties which have been described in detail in the Memorandum of Understanding entered into by and between the petitioner of B.A. No.7131 of 2026 namely Sanjay Kumar Agarwal @ Sanjay Kumar Inderchand Agarwal who has been described in the said Memorandum of Understanding as Sanjay Agarwal and Vimla Fuels and Metal Limited and Vimla Metcoke Limited which three together i.e., Sanjay Agarwal and Vimla Fuels and Metal Limited and Vimla Metcoke Limited have been referred as first party in the Memorandum of Understanding with the company of the informant namely M/s Naryani Coke Private Limited as second party. The undisputed fact remains that like the petitioner of B.A. No.7131 of 2026 namely Sanjay Kumar Agarwal; the petitioner of B.A. No.7139 of 2026 namely Sachin Kumar Agarwal @ Sanjay Kumar Inderchand Agarwal is also a Director of both Vimla Fuels and Metal Limited and Vimla Metcoke Limited. The undisputed fact also remains that Vimla Metcoke Limited has been renamed as Vimla Nextera JVC Coke Limited. There is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners since the beginning of the transaction with the informant and his company, made the informant and his company believe by way of deception, that the petitioners and their company are the owners of the four different properties mentioned in Clause No.2 of the said Memorandum of Understanding though both the petitioners were knowing pretty well that the property described at Serial No.2 of the said Memorandum of Understanding, that is Revenue Survey No.525 of Village Shikra Taruka, Taluka Bhachau, Pin Code-370140 has already been sold by the successor of Vimla Metcoke Limited namely Vimla Nextera JVC Coke Limited to Ms. Rakhi Sanjay Kumar Agarwal and on the date of entering into the Memorandum i.e, on 30.09.2024 Vimla Metcoke Limited ceased to be the owner of the said property. There is further allegation that both the petitioners being the Directors of Vimla Fuels and Metal Limited knowing pretty well that the property at Serial No.3 and 4 in Clause No.2 of the Memorandum of Understanding are not owned by the Vimla Fuels and Metal Limited because the consideration amount mentioned in the concerned sale-deed, has not been paid to the vendors of the said sale-deed; fraudulently made the informant and his company believe that they are the rightful owners of the said property and created an equitable mortgage of the said properties, by depositing the title documents of the said properties, of which the petitioners and their company were not owners but fraudulently posing themselves as being owner of such property; with the informant and his company and induced the informant so deceived and succeeded in inducing the informant his company to part with Rs.5,85,00,000/- promising to return the same but having no intention to return the same since the beginning. It is further alleged that admittedly, the petitioners have committed similar offences with other persons and are accused persons of at least four other cases the description of which has been mentioned in paragraph-26 of the respective bail applications by the petitioners themselves voluntarily and the F.I.R. in respect of such cases, have been instituted against the petitioners in DCB P.S, Ahmedabad, Govindpur P.S., Dhanbad, Jharkhand, Gandhidham P.S. B Division, Kachchh and Hare Street P.S., Kolkata, West Bengal. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is false. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Bimlendu Shekhar Jha vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2026:JHHC:22751 and submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Chandra Ratan Lal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148 wherein inter alia it was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the mere inability of the accused person to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence. It is next submitted that basically this is a case of inability of the petitioners to pay the loan taken by their company because the company is under liquidation and a proceeding is going on in NCLT, Ahmedabad. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute and this criminal case has been instituted for the purpose of wreaking vengeance. It is next submitted that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still none of the offences is made out against the petitioners. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 02.04.2026. Hence it is submitted that the petitioners be released on bail. Learned. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer for bail and submit that this is not a simple case of non- payment of loan rather this is a case of organized crime where the petitioners are members of a crime syndicate and they have with the intention of deceiving the informant since the beginning, have led the informant to believe that they are owners of three different properties though they were knowing pretty well since the beginning that they are not the owners of the property in question and created equitable mortgage of such property in favour of the company of the informant and thereby made the company of the informant part with huge amount of money knowing pretty well since the beginning that they had no intention to repay the money and the informant is not the only aggrieved party rather such offences have been committed with other persons also, as has been admitted by the petitioners in paragraph-26 of the bail application. It is next submitted that in view of the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and they being members of crime syndicate, there is every chance of the petitioners absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, in order to evade payment of the huge amount of money cheated by them. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioners ought not be released on bail at this stage. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners of defrauding the informant and his company of Rs.5,85,00,000/- by cheating the company of the informant as a member of crime syndicate and during the investigation of the case, the allegation against the petitioners has been found to be true and charge-sheet has already been submitted; the case has already been committed to the court of Sessions and the offence punishable under Section 111(2) (b) of the B.N.S., 2023 attracts punishment of imprisonment which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and with fine of not less than Rs.5,00,000/- and also the criminal antecedent of the petitioners as well as their chance of absconding and tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioners be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated-24.08.2026-Animesh/