2026:JHHC:2909 --1-- A.B.A. No. 6244 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6244 of 2025 ---- Shyam Jee Sharan @ Shyam Sharan, aged about 51 years, S/o Krishna Nandan Sharan, R/o Flat No.106, Vishwanath Plaza, Chandrika Block, Khagoul Road, Above ICICI Bank, PO and PS – Mithapur, Patna, Phulwari, District – Patna, Bihar – 800001 .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand through ACB, Vigilance .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Vivek Kr. Rai, Advocate :- Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate :- Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate :- Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate :- Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocae :- Ms. Sanya Kumari, Advocate :- Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate ---- 06/04.02.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with ACB P.S. Case No.09 of 2025 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 107, 109 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and 61(2) read with 318, 336, 340, 316, 45 and 49 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 7(c), 12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act pending 2026:JHHC:2909 --2-- A.B.A. No. 6244 of 2025 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s firm M/s ADSEP Mega Infrastructure Private Limited had entered into a memo of understanding with M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. on 13.10.2023 for providing operational expertise and management support, but the said memo of understanding was never acted upon between the parties. He further submits that after execution of memo of understanding dated 13.10.2023 there had been no communication between the management of M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner and hence the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged allegation of submitting the fake bank guarantee to the Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited is false. He then submits that the petitioner or his company have not received any payment and was not authorized and prepared any bank guarantee on behalf of M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and in spite of that M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. has stated that the petitioner along with Niraj Kumar Singh have submitted the bank guarantee with Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Ltd. He next submits that in view of the fact that no payment has been made the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the said M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. On these grounds, he 2026:JHHC:2909 --3-- A.B.A. No. 6244 of 2025 submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the ACB opposes the prayer and submits that on 13.10.2023 one Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered by and between M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Pvt. Ltd., its Director and ADSEP Mega Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director namely Shyam Jee Sharan, who is the petitioner contained in Annexure – A of the counter affidavit. He further submits that in the said memorandum of understanding it has been stated that “memorandum of understanding is made for e-tender No. JSBCL/Tender/2022-23/07 dated 28/03/2023 for empanelment of placement agency for Zone-10 contract and entered on this 13th October, 2023 at New Delhi. He then submits that in terms of bid document sub-contract was prohibited in spite of that sub-contract has been made in favour of the petitioner by M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. contained in Annexure-B of the counter affidavit. He next submits that at paragraph No.324 of the case diary, the I.O. has recorded certain facts that on 27.07.2023 one bank guarantee of Rs.5,35,35,241/- of Bank of Baroda, Jodhpur Park Branch, Kolkata, West Bengal was deposited and thereafter, the said bank guarantee was replaced on 28.12.2023 by another bank guarantee of identical amount on account of management related issued. The new bank guarantee was issued by the Punjab 2026:JHHC:2909 --4-- A.B.A. No. 6244 of 2025 and Sind Bank, Geeta Colony Branch, New Delhi and the said bank guarantee was further extended on 18.03.2025, however, the Punjab and Sind Bank, Geeta Colony Branch, New Delhi vide its correspondence dated 20.03.2025 stated that its limit for bank guarantee is only Rs.20 lakhs and the M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. has neither any account nor any banking relation with it. It has been also stated that the e-mail ID mentioned in the bank guarantee including letter head, stamp and employee name/ID does not belong to bank. Another reply dated 24.03.2025 of Punjab and Sind Bank, Geeta Colony Branch, New Delhi was also to be of similar effect. He also submits that during the course of investigation, the Assistant Investigating Officer of the case, again verified the bank guarantees submitted by M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. which was issued by Bank of Baroda, Jodhpur Park Branch, 1/149A, Gariahat, Road, Kolkata and Punjab and Sindh Bank, Geeta Colony, Delhi and it was found and revealed by the officials of the said bank that the bank guarantees issued from the said branch are forged/fabricated as the same have not been issued from their branch and the said fact is also recorded at paragraph No.705 and 723 of the case diary. He next submits that a composite demand letter dated 09.01.2025 was issued by Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited for Zone – 5 and 10, wherein a sum of Rs.13,15,56,892 was directed to be deposited within a period of three days by M/s Vision Hospitality Services and 2026:JHHC:2909 --5-- A.B.A. No. 6244 of 2025 Consultants Pvt. Ltd. failing which the bank guarantees submitted by the company was sought to be encashed. He next submits that the said demand was challenged by the said company before Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C.) Filing No.416 of 2025 and after removal of defect the same has been numbered as W.P.(C.) No.904 of 2025 and the writ petition was taken up on 13.01.2025 and on the said date vide order dated 13.01.2025 stay of invocation of bank guarantee until further orders was granted by Division Bench of this Court. He next submits that the said writ petition was further taken up for consideration on 19.02.2025 and on the said order was passed directing the said company to extend the validity of bank guarantee submitted by it up to 30.04.2025, however, no such extension of validity of bank guarantee was done by the said company. He next submits that thereafter the said writ petition was taken up on 18.03.2025 and on the said date also order was passed for instructing the petitioner of the said case to extend the validity of bank guarantee. He next submits that in the said writ petition a supplementary affidavit was filed by the said company wherein a letter dated 18.03.2025 issued by Punjab and Sind Bank, Geeta Colony Branch, New Delhi by which bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.5,35,35,241/- was allegedly shown to be extended with validity up to 30.04.2025 was annexed. He next submits that thereafter the said writ petition was again taken up for consideration on 26.03.2025 and on that day since bank guarantee 2026:JHHC:2909 --6-- A.B.A. No. 6244 of 2025 was not extended the interim order granted by the Division Bench was vacated. He next submits that the said letter was further verified by Investigating Agency and the bank has replied that it was not issued by the said bank and it was to be forged one. He next submits that M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vide its reply dated 08.04.2025 stated that Shyam Jee Sharan has replaced the earlier bank guarantee dated 27.07.2023 and submitted another bank guarantee dated 21.12.2023 and in view of that the petitioner is also involved in submitting false bank guarantee. He also submits that the anticipatory bail of director of M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. has already been rejected by this Court in ABA No.4596 of 2025 by order dated 10.11.2025. He next submits that the petitioner will influence the witnesses and will tamper with the evidence. He also submits that the investigation against the petitioner is still going on and the petitioner has not appeared before the ACB. 5. In view of the above submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, it transpires that Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited quoted e-tender for empanelment of supply of manpower to the legal management in the State of Jharkhand on 16.06.2023 and a letter of intent was issued in favour of M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. on 11.07.2023 and memorandum of undertaking was signed by the petitioner on 13.10.2023 and the bank guarantee was deposited by 2026:JHHC:2909 --7-- A.B.A. No. 6244 of 2025 said company, however, the Director of M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. is showing that the petitioner has submitted and the petitioner is shifting his liability upon the said company. Admittedly, memorandum of undertaking is there between M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner dated 13.10.2023. In paragraph Nos.705 and 723 of the case diary, it has been revealed that fake bank guarantee has been submitted before Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited. 6. Thus, it is crystal clear that forged bank guarantee has been deposited with Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited and not only that even before the High Court in the proceeding in the writ petition forged letter has been filed in the form of supplementary affidavit and subsequently when it has revealed the said company has withdrew the writ petition in light of order dated 03.04.2025 which clearly suggests that mischief has been done by way of submitting forged bank guarantee. 7. The petitioner is the appointee of M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. in light of MOU dated 13.02.2023 contained in Annexure-A of the counter affidavit in which memorandum of understanding was entered by and between M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Pvt. Ltd., its Director and ADSEP Mega Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd through its Managing Director namely Shyam Jee Sharan. 2026:JHHC:2909 --8-- A.B.A. No. 6244 of 2025 8. The Memorandum of Understanding signed between the M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Private Limited and ADSEP Mega Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd the financial clause is as under:- D.1 BG (Bank Guarantee) amount should be paid by the Second Party after LOI from the JSBCL I will be transacted by Snigdha Enterprises to Account of M/s Vision Hospitality Services & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. D.2. BG (Bank Guarantee) should be refunded by the First Party to Second Party within 7 working days after receiving from JSBCL.” 9. In light of above clause, the petitioner was required to give amount of bank guarantee and bank guarantee was required to be obtained by M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and it has been submitted that anticipatory bail of Parmar Bipinbhai @ Bipin Jadavbhai Parmar @ Parmar Bipin Jadav Bhai who is the Director of M/s Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. has already been rejected by this Court in ABA No.4596 of 2025 by order dated 10.11.2025. Not only that even the High Court has not been spared by the accused persons by way of filing false affidavit and pursuant to that the writ petition has been withdrawn by order dated 03.04.2025 and the same allegation is there against Niraj Kumar Singh and the petitioner and Niraj Kumar Singh has already been arrested. Further filing of false affidavit is the serious thing and that is direct interference with the administration of justice and that has been held in several judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as High Court. 2026:JHHC:2909 --9-- A.B.A. No. 6244 of 2025 10. Anticipatory bail can be granted only on exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enrobed in the crime and would not misuse his liberty and will cooperate with the trial. 11. In view of the above, there is prima facie sufficient materials against the petitioner of doing mischief and further the petitioner is involved in economic offence which is having deep- rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds and causing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 12. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis of this case, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 04.02.2026 Sangam/