2026:JHHC:12100 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 7455 of 2025 Arvind Singh, aged about 51 years, son of late Gopal Singh, Resident of Road No.-22, Khursipar, P.O. & P.S. Bhilai, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through Anti-corruption Bureau … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shashank Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate : Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate : Ms. Sanya Kumari, Advocate : Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate --- CAV on16.04.2026 Pronounced on 24.04.2026 This anticipatory bail application has been filed in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 09/2025 for the offence registered under Sections 61(2) read with Sections 318, 336, 340, 316/45 and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 7(c), 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 said to be pending in the court of learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi. 2. Arguments of the petitioner A. The petitioner is an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant at Chhattisgarh and he is not even remotely connected with the entire state of affairs regarding the excise department in Chhattisgarh or the excise department of the State of Jharkhand. However, he is an accused in connection with similar case which has been lodged at Chhattisgarh and he was required to 2026:JHHC:12100 2 appear in the Court at Chhattisgarh from time to time. B. The counter affidavit filed in the present case reveals that 3 notices under Section 35 (3) of BNSS dated 07.08.2025, 25.08.2025 and 02.09.2025 were sent through registered covered to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not appear. C. With respect to each of the notices, he has given the following dates: (i) 1st Notice dated 07.08.2025 was received by the petitioner on 17.08.2025 and he was directed to appear on 19.08.2025. He submits that on 20.08.2025, the date was fixed at Chhattisgarh court, and therefore, he responded by saying that he would be unable to attend and another date may be fixed in the 1st week of September. (ii) So far as the 2nd notice dated 25.08.2025 is concerned, the date fixed for appearance was 02.09.2025 and he received the same on 04.09.2025, and therefore, there was no occasion for him to appear and this was also intimated to the authority. (iii) Thereafter, 3rd notice dated 02.09.2025 was issued which was received by him on 09.09.2025 and he was to appear on 18.09.2025. He has stated that the same was also responded and the response has been annexed along with the rejoinder to the counter affidavit. 3. However, in spite of opportunity granted by this Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner during the court proceedings, the learned counsel could not show any dispatch of the response in connection with the 3rd notice under section 35 of BNSS although the reply has been annexed along with the rejoinder to the counter affidavit. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that if any interim protection is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner is still ready and willing to appear before the authorities and is ready to co-operate with the investigation, but in absence of any protection, it is all likelihood that the petitioner will be taken into custody. 2026:JHHC:12100 3 5. He has also referred to order of anticipatory bail passed in the case of Binay Kumar Singh by the learned district court vide order dated 07.07.2025 to submit that the co-accused has been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by the district court itself. 6. Arguments of the Opposite Party ACB I. The learned counsel for the opposite party ACB has opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner was a part of the syndicate, who was involved in the alleged offence. He has further submitted that the petitioner was the person who used to collect the commission on behalf of the co-accused. II. The learned counsel has further submitted that merely because he is an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant, the same does not mean that he cannot be involved in the alleged offence. Rather the petitioner is involved in similar nature of offence relating to the excise department in the State of Chhattisgarh also in which he has enlarged on bail and the bail order has been annexed along with the anticipatory bail application itself at Annexure – 2, with certain conditions. III. The learned counsel has further submitted that the statement of the co-accused/witnesses have been recorded under Section 180 as well as under Section 183 BNSS, who have disclosed the manner in which the syndicate has worked in commission of the alleged offence. The persons whose statement has been recorded under section 180/183 BNSS are as under: - i. Case diary no. 49 u/s 183 BNSS – Amit Mittal ii. Case diary no.45 u/s 180 BNSS – Vidhu Gupta iii. Case diary no.55 u/s 180 BNSS - Atul Singh and Mukesh Manchanda iv. Case diary no.46 u/s 180 BNSS – Sanjeev Jain, Rajeev Dwivedi and Manish Jain. IV. The learned counsel submits that it’s a case of deep-rooted conspiracy and therefore custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. The petitioner is required to be confronted with the other co-accused persons during the course 2026:JHHC:12100 4 of interrogation and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail. V. The learned counsel for the opposite party has referred to the evidences collected against the petitioner as referred to in the counter affidavit. VI. It is submitted that the arrest and interrogation of the petitioner is essential for unearthing the truth and punishing the culprit. There is credible information against him. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials placed on record, this Court finds that the case of the prosecution, as per the written complaint of Vinay Kumar Ram, the Investigating officer ACB, Ranchi, which forms the basis of FIR, is that in July 2023 Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited (JSBCL) engaged two placement agencies for man power supply at its retail liquor stores. It has been alleged that the said placement agencies: 1) M/S Vision Hospitality Services & Consultants Pvt. Ltd, and 2) M/S Marshan Innovative Security Services Pvt. Ltd., submitted bank guarantees to JSBCL. Later, on account of some violations on their part the bank guarantees were sought to be encashed, then it was revealed that those bank guarantees were fake. Hence this FIR was filed against 13 accused persons which also included Mr Vinay Kumar Choubey who was posted as Principal Secretary of Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Jharkhand at the relevant point of time along with other officials of Excise department and also the private placement agencies who had provided fake bank guarantees at the time of submission of documents to JSBCL. 8. After institution of FIR, during the course of investigation on the basis of the evidences collected it was revealed that the petitioner Arvind Singh had played a vital role in commission of the offences. He was summoned by the ACB for investigation, but allegations are the despite several notices, he did not appear before the I.O. nor cooperated in the investigation. 9. The learned counsel for the opposite party has referred to the 2026:JHHC:12100 5 statements of the co-accused/witnesses recorded under Section 180 as well as under Section 183 BNSS, who have disclosed the manner in which the syndicate has worked in commission of the alleged offence. The persons whose statement has been recorded under section 180/183 BNSS are as under: - v. Case diary no. 49 u/s 183 BNSS – Amit Mittal vi. Case diary no.45 u/s 180 BNSS – Vidhu Gupta vii. Case diary no.55 u/s 180 BNSS - Atul Singh and Mukesh Manchanda viii. Case diary no.46 u/s 180 BNSS – Sanjeev Jain, Rajeev Dwivedi and Manish Jain. 10. The learned counsel for the A.C.B. has produced the aforesaid statements during the course of hearing and for purposes of fairness, the learned counsel for the petitioner also had the occasion to have a look at those statements. 11. The opposite party has referred to the counter affidavit to highlight the evidences that surfaced during the investigation, wherein it has been stated as under: - a. During the course of investigation, the name and role of petitioner - ARVIND SINGH surfaced. The evidences collected, so far, incriminating him in grave offences. b. One non-FIR-named accused in his statement dated 16/07/2025 recorded under Section 183 BNSS (equivalent to Section - 164 Cr.P.C) has disclosed the name and role of ARVIND SINGH. The said witness stated that he was not interested to participate in Tender in Jharkhand as the margin money was only 3.9% upon which ARVIND SINGH (petitioner herein) along with Arunpati Tripathi, Siddharth Singhania and Vikash Agarwal threatened the said witness and directed him to participate in the JSBCL Tender in the State of Jharkhand, or else he would be blacklisted. c. One non-FIR-named accused namely, VIDHU GUPTA, in his statement has disclosed the name and role of ARVIND SINGH in his statement to the I.O. It has been revealed that the 2026:JHHC:12100 6 petitioner threatened the placement agencies working in the State of Chhattisgarh, as the said placement agencies were not agreeable to work in the State of Jharkhand as the Margin Money payable as per the tender conditions to the said placement agencies was only 3.9% which according to the said placement agencies was very less, but, the petitioner threatened the said placement agencies to participate in the Tender floated in the State of Jharkhand, or, else they would also be blacklisted in the State of Chhattisgarh. The said fact is recorded at Para 506 of CD-45. d. One non-FIR-named accused namely, Atul Singh and Mukesh Manchanda, in his statement has disclosed the name and role of ARVIND SINGH in their statement to the I.O, and, it has been revealed in the statement of Atul Singh and Mukesh Manchanda that ARVIND SINGH was closely associated in the liquor scam for generation of illicit money with one Pappu Bhatia, Vikash Agarwal, Navin Kedia and other accused persons, and he used to frequently visit Chhattisgarh for attending meeting with other members of the syndicate. The said fact is recorded at Para 612 of CD-55. e. One Sanjeev Jain, Rajeev Dwivedi and Manish Jain (all three Directors of Primeone Workforce Pvt. Ltd. being a placement agency) in their reply/statement furnished pursuant to notice issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS has disclosed the name and role of ARVIND SINGH to the I.O. It has been stated by the aforementioned three persons that Siddharth Singhania informed them that Vikash Agarwal used to collect the commission money from all the companies, the same was paid to Vinay Kumar Choubey and other officials in Jharkhand through ARVIND SINGH and Arunpati Tripathi. ARVIND SINGH was also acting as Liasoner with the officials in the State of Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, and he was also one of the important members of the Syndicate. Further, it has been stated that Arvind Singh, Arunpati Tripathi and Anwar Dhebar also 2026:JHHC:12100 7 got the work of wholesale supply of Liqour allotted to one M/s Om Sai Beverages and to M/s Dishita Ventures Pvt. Ltd, and there has been huge transaction of money amounting to crores, which has been paid as commission to Vinay Kumar Choubey through Vinay Kumar Singh, Arvind Singh and Arunpati Tripathi. The said fact is recorded at Para 601 of CD-54. 12. It has also been submitted that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer sent several notices under Section 35 (3) of BNSS dated 07.08.2025, 25.08.2025, and 02.09.2025 through registered post to ARVIND SINGH but, ARVIND SINGH failed to comply the same, and never appeared before the Investigating officer. It has been submitted that the conduct of the accused clearly indicates that he is not co-operating in the investigation deliberately and intentionally and on this ground alone the Anticipatory Bail application of this accused petitioner is fit to be rejected. 13. The petitioner has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case registered in Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No.2699 of 2025 with the following terms and conditions: (A) The appellants shall surrender their passports, if they are holding a passport with the Investigating officer; (B) The appellants shall report to the Investigating officer as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating officer by issuing notice in writing; and (C) The appellants will continue to cooperate with the Investigating officer for investigation. 14. The petitioner was directed to be produced before the appropriate sessions court in the State of Chhattisgarh on 2nd of June 2025. This Court finds that the petitioner was repeatedly issued notices by the Investigating officer in the State of Jharkhand, but he did not appear on account of one reason or the other and primarily on the ground that he has to appear in the proceedings before the court at Chhattisgarh, but even the notices fixing the date in Chhattisgarh have not been placed on record; although the Hon’ble Supreme Court has 2026:JHHC:12100 8 issued clear direction that the Investigating officer at Chhattisgarh was to issue notice in writing to the petitioner seeking his appearance. It appears that the petitioner has not cooperated with the investigation in the State of Jharkhand and consequently, the investigation in the case in Jharkhand has suffered. 15. This Court is of the considered view that there are materials against the petitioner and custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required to come to the truth. It is also important to note that the witnesses have been revealing the role played by the petitioner in the matter of liquor scam in the State of Jharkhand. Further, the petitioner has not been co-operating in the investigation. The case of the co-accused Binay Kumar Singh who was granted bail on 07.07.2025 stands on a different footing inasmuch as on that day, the learned court found that there was no direct and specific evidence and material available against him. However, in the present case, there are materials collected against the petitioner by virtue of recording of deposition of witnesses/co-accused under Section 180/183 of the BNSS. 16. In view of the materials collected during investigation and also the statement of Amit Mittal recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, apart from the statement of Vidhu Gupta, Atul Singh and Mukesh Manchanda, Sanjeev Jain, Rajeev Dwivedi and Manish Jain recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. This Court is of the view that if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, there is likelihood that he may tamper with the evidence. The fact remains that the anticipatory bail application of the co-accused namely Arun Pati Tripathi has been rejected by this Court in A.B.A. No.7285 of 2025. 17. The learned trial court while rejecting the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner has rightly observed that in the matter of serious economic offence involving large scale fraud with public money or complex financial crime, the anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of routine and has rightly placed reliance on the judgements reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24 (P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of 2026:JHHC:12100 9 Enforcement) and (2013) 7 SCC 439 (Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI). 18. As a result of the aforesaid discussions, the prayer for anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected. 19. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/email. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of pronouncement:24.04.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:24.04.2026