2026:JHHC:26706 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5014 of 2026 Girija Shankar Kumar, aged about 57 years, son of Late Surendra Prasad Singh, resident of 33, Mirchaibari, Katihar, P.O. Sahayak, P.S. Katihar, District-Katihar, (Bihar). … … Petitioner Versus The Central Bureau of Investigation … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate For the Opp. Party -CBI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI : Ms. Shreya Shukla, AC to ASGI --- 03/03.09.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with R.C. Case No. 80(S)/2017-R which has been registered for offence under sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, sections 3 and 4 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme Banning Act, 1978 and under section 45(S) of RBI Act, which is said to be pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate – cum- Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dhanbad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cognizance has been taken only under Sections 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme Banning Act, 1978 and the maximum punishment is 07 years. The learned counsel has further submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted and the investigation is complete. He submits that the petitioner was never taken into custody and the petitioner throughout cooperated with the investigation. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner happens to be one of the directors of the companies namely, M/s Sun Plant Agro Limited and M/s Sun Plant Bio Energy Private Limited. He has submitted that now SEBI has also initiated a proceeding against the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that since the petitioner has throughout cooperated with the proceedings 2026:JHHC:26706 2 and the maximum punishment is 07 years, an order of similar nature as has been passed in A.B.A. No. 3281 of 2026 dated 06.08.2026 be passed in this case. 5. Paragraph 29 of the Anticipatory Bail Application has been referred to and the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the company has already repaid/refunded a substantial money of Rs. 156.74 crores against total liability of Rs. 158 crores in terms of the order of the SEBI. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party- CBI has not disputed the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and he has no objection if similar order as have been passed in A.B.A. No. 3281 of 2026 dated 06.08.2026 and in A.B.A. No. 967 of 2026 dated 10.04.2026, is passed in this case. 7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the submissions and the facts as recorded above, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of in the same terms as A.B.A. No. 967 of 2026 and it is observed that once the petitioner files surrender-cum-bail application pursuant to the summons, his application will be considered as per law including the ratio of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.” reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 and in the case of “Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.” reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 615. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:03.09.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:03.09.2026