2026:JHHC:11054 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.7221 of 2025 Md. Jasim Ansari @ Md. Jaseem Ansari, son of Md. Azimuddin Ansari @ Md. Ajiruddin Ansari … … Petitioner Versus Union of India through CBI … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Deepak Kr. Bharati, Advocate --- 09/17.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application has been filed in connection with R.C. Case No. 51(S) of 2017/CBI/EOW/Ranchi, registered under Sections 120 B, 420, 406, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3, 4, 6 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and subsequently, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 120B, 409, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize, Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 pending in the court of learned Special Judge CBI cum SDJM, Dhanbad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is one of the shareholders of the company actively involved in the affairs of the company M/s Wave Infra Project Ltd. and there is allegation of not paying the unpaid amount to the investors to the extent of Rs.44,66,600/-. It has also been alleged that the petitioner has played active role in establishing the company and petitioner along with others was involved in illegal collection of money from the public under different schemes of Raddle Industries Limited by giving false assurance to pay heavy returns to the investors/depositors. They were the authorized signatory of the account of the company and Investment Certificates (Redeemable Preference Share) of the company were issued under their signature. As such they are the beneficiary of the unpaid amount of Rs.7,85,500/- to the investors. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of 2026:JHHC:11054 2 the judgment passed by 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 the privilege of anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. He has also submitted that anticipatory bail has been granted to the co- accused namely Rijwan Ansari in A.B.A. No. 8585 of 2023 vide order dated 06.08.2024. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party has submitted that the petitioner was a director/ share holder of company who started collecting investment from public without getting the proper documents from R.B.I and collected huge amount from common people. He submits that investors have been defrauded and there is no likelihood of refund of the remaining amount to the investors. However, he submits that in the petition, there is no assertion that the petitioner has been served with any notice under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C. corresponding 35 of BNSS and as to whether the petitioner has responded to such notice. 6. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per his instruction, the petitioner has co-operated and as & when notice was issued to the petitioner, there was no reason that the petitioner would not have cooperate with the investigation. He has also submitted that till date no warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner, only summons have been issued. 7. At this, the learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that once the summons has been issued, there is no question of issuance of any notice under the aforesaid provisions of BNSS to the petitioner, asking him to participate in the investigation and apparently the charge sheet has already been filed. He has submitted that only summons has been issued to the petitioner, the petitioner may participate and there is no apprehension of arrest as on date. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party has also submitted that since the charge sheet has already been submitted, upon appearance cum surrender of the petitioner, it may be left open to the court to pass 2026:JHHC:11054 3 appropriate order as per law and also in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) and in the case of Siddharth (Supra). 9. After hearing the learned cPounsel for the parties and considering the submission and the facts as recorded above, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of with an observation 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 (Supra) and in the case of Siddharth (Supra). 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:17.04.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:21.04.2026