2026:JHHC:11910 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 7348 of 2023 Surajit Kashyapi, son of Tapan Kashyapi … … Petitioner Versus Union of India through CBI … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI : Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate --- 05/23.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with R.C. Case No.10(s)/2017, registered under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Dhanbad. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner is director in two companies and Vice President in one company involved in the present case but there is no need for any custodial interrogation of the petitioner. He has further submitted that under such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party has objected to the prayer for bail and submitted that cognizance was taken as back as on 11.11.2019 and since then the petitioner has not appeared before the court and the stage of the case is for appearance of the petitioner. He submits that it is very clear that the petitioner is evading his appearance before the court. 5. The learned counsel submits that it’s a serious economic offence and if the petitioner appears before the court his surrender – cum – bail application can be considered as per law. 6. The punishment prescribed for the alleged offence is up to life imprisonment and there are materials against the petitioner and he 2026:JHHC:11910 2 does not deserve anticipatory bail. He also submitted that the anticipatory bail of the co-accused namely Aliul Islam has been rejected vide order dated 05.07.2024 in A.B.A. No.8810 of 2023. 7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds that it is alleged that the petitioner is director of two companies namely M/s Success Valley India Agro Limited and M/s Success Valley Projects Limited, and he is the Vice President of M/s Success Valley Credit Cooperative Society. It has been alleged that the company had cheated large number of persons and has operated within the State of Jharkhand, although they were entitled to carry out their activity only in the State of Delhi and West Bengal. 8. In view of the nature of allegation involved in this case and that several investors invested amount on the inducement of the accused persons, and consequently, they had been cheated with respect to huge amount of money, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The fact remains that the prayer for anticipatory bail of similarly situated co-accused namely Aliul Islam has been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 9. This anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:23.04.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:27.04.2026