Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Kumar Tiwary @ Sanjay Kumar ... vs Central Bureau Of Investigation .... ... on 19 August, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:24300
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
B.A. No. 11012 of 2024
----
Sanjay Kumar Tiwary @ Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, aged about 54 years son of
Shiv Bilash Tiwari at present resident of Flat No.1008, Vasundhara
Complex 10th Floor, Near Mahi Restaurant, Argora, PO Doranda, PS
Argora, District -Ranchi, Permanent Address-R/o Vill.-Bisunpur, Gomoh,
Near Hanuman Mandir, P.O.Gomoh, PS Hariharpur, District-Dhanbad
.... Petitioner
-- Versus --
Central Bureau of Investigation .... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Senior Advocate
For the C.B.I. :- Mr. Prashant Pallav, DSGI
Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate
----
6/19.08.2025 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner as well as Mr. Prashant Pallava, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with RC-
12(A)/2017-R, for the offence registered under sections 406/409/420/120B IPC
and section 13(2)/13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), pending in
the court of learned Special Judge-II, C.B.I. (Other than AHD Scam Cases),
Ranchi.
3. The aforesaid R.C. Case has been registered alleging therein that a
complaint Ref.No.AGM/GEN/15/129 dated 20.11.2017 has been received from
Shri Jasbir Singh, Asstt General Manager, State Bank of India, Hatia Branch,
Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004 alleging therein that No.33954815459 of Jharkhand
Rajya Madhayan Bhojan Prdhikaran Account is maintained at State Bank of
India, Hatia Branch, Ranchi on 05.08.2017, State Bank of India, Hatia Branch
received 6 debit advices from the Department "Jharkhand Rajya Madhayan
Bhojan Prdhikaran", Govt. of Jharkhand for transfer of Rs.120.31 Crores from
2025:JHHC:24300
their Saving Bank Account to multiple accounts maintained with different banks
including State Bank of India. As per the advice, Rs.20.29 Crores was to be
transferred to State Bank of India account and Rs.100,01,41,016/-(Rs.100.01
crores) was to be transferred to other Bank accounts. For bulk transfer through
Real Time Gross Settlement/National Electronic Fund Transfer (RTGS/NEFT),
Rs.100.01 crores was debited from Saving Bank Account of Jharkhand Rajya
Madhayan Bhojan Prdhikaran and temporarily parked in office/suspense
Account of the Branch for processing of transfer through NEFT/RTGS to various
accounts. Due to failure in uploading, the entire amount of Rs.100.01 crores
got returned to the office/Suspense Account of the Branch.
It is further alleged that Shri Ajay Oraon, the then Deputy Manager
(Business Development Department), State Bank of India, Hatia Branch, Ranchi
(under suspension), instead of crediting back the amount of Rs.100.01 Crores
to the Saving Bank Account of Jharkhand Rajya Madhyan Bhojan Pradhikarnarn
from office/suspense account of the branch, with gross negligence and without
applying due diligence dishonestly and by abusing his official position as a
public servant, prepared, posted and authorized the transfer of almost entire
amount of Rs.100.01 Crores to the Current Account No.36310149578 of
M/s. Bhanu Construction and Shri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari and Shri Suresh Kumar
both partners of M/s. Bhanu Construction dishonestly transferred the said
amount to their various accounts and utilized/misappropriated the same by
keeping it as liquid security/margin for the credit facility extended to them by
Axis Bank Ltd., Ashok Nagar, Ranchi, HDFC Bank Ltd., Ashok Nagar Branch,
SREI Equipment Finance Ltd., Ranchi, Cholamandalam Investment & Finance
Co. Ltd., Ranchi.
It is further alleged in the complaint that out of Rs.100.01 Crores, State
Bank of India, Hatia Branch, Ranchi has managed to recover/restore a sum of
2025:JHHC:24300
Rs.76,29,13,000/- till 20.11.2017 from various accounts with different banks
and Rs.23,72,28,016 could not be restored from M/s. Bhanu Construction which
resulting wrongful loss to the State Bank of India, Hatia Branch, Ranchi and
corresponding wrongful gain to M/s. Bhanu Construction.
The aforesaid facts prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable
offence against (1) Shri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Partner of M/s. Bhanu
Construction, R/o. Flat No. 1008, 10th Floor, Vasundara Enclave, Argora Chowk.
Ranchi (2) Shri Suresh Kumar, Partner of M/s. Bhanu Construction, R/o 2nd
Floor, Basanti Residency, Shivdayal Nagar, Argora, Ranchi, (3) M/s. Bhanu
Construction, Partnership Firm, (4) Ajay Oraon, the then Dy. Manager
(Development Banking Deptt), State Bank of India, Hatia Branch, Ranchi and
others and therefore, a Regular Case is registered against (1) Shri Sanjay
Kumar Tiwari, Partner of M/s Bhanu Construction, R/o, Flat No.1008, 10th
Floor, Vasundara Enclave, Argora Chowk, Ranchi, (2) Shri Suresh Kumar,
Partner of M/s. Bhanu Construction, R/o 2nd Floor, Basanti Residency, Shivdayal
Nagar, Argore, Ranchi, (3) M/s. Bhanu Construction, Partnership Firm, (4) Ajay
Oraon, the then Dy. Manager (Development Banking Deptt), State Bank of
India, Hatia Branch, Ranchi and others U/s 120B r/w 406, 409, 420 of IPC and
Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and investigation is endorsed to Shri
Amit Kumar, Inspector, CBI, ACB, Ranchi.
The original letter of complaint vide No.AGM/GEN/15/129 dated
20.11.2017 of Shri Jasbir Singh, Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India,
Hatia Branch, Ranchi is attached herewith in original as a part and parcel of this
FIR.
4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has earlier moved before this Court in A.B.A No.6218 of
2019 in which the petitioner was granted privilege of anticipatory bail
2025:JHHC:24300
provisionally on certain terms and conditions by order dated 06.09.2019 passed
by a coordinate Bench of this Court and subsequently the petitioner has moved
in Cr.M.P. No.2235 of 2019 but the same was dismissed for non-prosecution by
order dated 22.06.2023 by a coordinate Bench of this Court and thereafter the
petitioner has moved in W.P.(Cr.) No.371 of 2019 which was dismissed by order
dated 26.08.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner again moved in Cr.M.P. No.1618 of
2020 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 17.08.2020
and again the petitioner has filed B.A. No.8427 of 2022 which was rejected by
the order dated 10.11.2022. The petitioner again moved before this Court in
B.A. No.1564 of 2024 which was further rejected vide order dated 27.06.2024.
He further submits that against the order dated 27.06.2024 the petitioner has
moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)
No.11688 of 2024 which was dismissed by the order dated 06.09.2024,
however, it was observed that the liberty was provided to the petitioner to file a
fresh application for grant of bail before the trial court in case of change in
circumstances or if the trial does not proceed expeditiously for reasons not
attributable to the petitioner.
5. In the above background, he submits that the petitioner has again
moved before the learned trial court by way of filing regular bail petition which
has been rejected by the impugned order. He submits that the reasons of filing
said petition was due to change in the circumstance. He submits that the
petitioner was arrested in PMLA case on 23.11.2021 wherein he was remanded
in connection with the present case on 27.05.2022 and since then he is
continuously in jail. According to him, the petitioner is in custody for three
years and two months, except four weeks when he was on interim bail granted
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submits that in the charge sheet, the
CBI has shown 45 witnesses to be examined in the trial, however, till date, only
2025:JHHC:24300
seven witnesses have been examined and in view of that, there is delay in the
proceeding of the trial, and as such, the petition has been filed and the learned
court has rejected the same. On this ground, he submits that the bail
application was filed, however, it has been erroneously rejected. He submits
that in the identical situation, Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted bail to one
Prem Prakash in Special Leave to Appeal (Cr.) No.5416 of 2024 and he placed
reliance on paragraph no.46 of the said judgment in the case of Prem
Prakash v. Union of India, through the Directorate of Enforcement. By
way of relying on the above judgment, he submits that Prem Prakash was
languishing in jail for over one year and Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted
bail. He further submits that Prem Prakash was further granted bail in another
case being Prem Prakash v. Union of India in S.L.P. (Cr.) No.691 of 2023 by
the order dated 04.10.2024. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner has further relied in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central
Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 and refers to
paragraph nos.21 and 23 of the said judgment, which is as under:
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid
down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to
secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial
by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither
punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be
considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure
that an accused person will stand his trial when called
upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the
principle that punishment begins after conviction, and
that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried
and duly found guilty.
23. Apart from the question of prevention being the
object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the
fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a
substantial punitive content and it would be improper for
2025:JHHC:24300
any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of
former conduct whether the accused has been convicted
for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for
the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a
lesson."
6. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
further submits that the co-accused namely, Ajay Oraon has been granted
regular bail in B.A. No.8703 of 2019 by order dated 04.12.2019 by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court.
7. Relying on the above judgment, learned Senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is on identical
footing and in view of that, the petitioner may kindly be enlarged on regular
bail. He further draws attention of the Court to the supplementary affidavit filed
by the petitioner and submits that substantial amount has already been
recovered from the petitioner and the document to that effect has been
brought on record. According to him, the bank account of the petitioner has
been seized and the amount has been recovered and even one of the fixed-
deposit amount has also been recovered. He submits that only a meager
amount less than Rs.One crore is remaining. In the aforesaid background, the
learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the regular bail
application may kindly be allowed. He submits that one of the ground is taken
in the counter affidavit by the C.B.I that the petitioner has produced forged
Covid-19 Certificate before the learned court for grant of bail and in light of
paragraph no.23 of the said judgment, in the case of Sanjay Chandra v.
Central Bureau of Investigation(supra) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
that point is not available to the C.B.I. He further submits that the Bank has
already moved a petition in light of Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to
Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and according to him, when the said
provision of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act,
2025:JHHC:24300
1993 has already been invoked by the Bank, the matter is arising out of civil
nature, and in view of that, the criminal liability is wrongly fastened upon the
petitioner. On these grounds, he submits that the regular bail to the petitioner
may kindly be allowed.
8. Per contra, Mr. Prashant Pallav, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) opposed the
prayer for bail and submits that recently the co-ordinate Bench by the order
dated 27.06.2024 has rejected the application for bail of the petitioner and
against which the petitioner has moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
which has already been rejected. He submits that on merit, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has already dismissed the petition, however, only on the point
of liberty to file fresh bail application, in the nature of allegations made against
the petitioner, the prayer for bail may kindly be rejected. He submits that the
petitioner is the partner in M/s Bhanu Construction, wherein an amount to the
tune of Rs.100 Crores 1 Lac 41 Thousand and Sixteen has been transferred and
the said amount was meant for Mid-Day Meal Scheme, and the said Scheme is
being run in the name of Jharkhand Rajya Madhyan Bhojan Pradhikaran. He
submits that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious and the
petitioner's conduct is further required to be considered in view of the fact that
the petitioner has produced the forged Covid-19 Certificate for the purpose of
taking bail from the learned trial court. He submits that it has been disclosed in
the affidavit that the C.B.I will conclude the evidence by March, 2026. He
submits that there is every chance that the trial will be concluded by March,
2026 and seeing the conduct of the petitioner, the bail may not be granted to
the petitioner.
9. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has moved in several
petitions; either by way of filing Anticipatory Bail Applications, Cr.M.Ps. or Bail
2025:JHHC:24300
Applications, and two of the bail applications filed by the petitioner have
already been rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and against the
order dated 27.06.2024, the Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.11688 of
2024 has been preferred, which has been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. However, an observation was made to move before the learned trial
court if there is any change in circumstances. The petitioner is the partner of
M/s Bhanu Construction and Suresh Kumar is an another partner of the said
firm being M/s Bhanu Construction. The Savings Bank Account of the
Jharkhand Rajya Madhyan Bhojan Pradhikaran is being maintained by the
State Bank of India [S.B.I), Hatia Branch, Ranchi and the amount to the tune of
Rs.100 Crores 1 Lac 41 Thousand and Sixteen has been transferred to the Bank
Account of M/s Bhanu Construction. It has come in the investigation that the
petitioner herein has utilized the said amount in his luxury and he has
purchased vehicle, made payment of insurance premium and utilized the same
in repayment of dues using the amount which was meant for Mid-Day Meal
under the said Scheme of the Government of Jharkhand. It appears that the
petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail provisionally in A.B.A. No.6218 of
2019 on certain conditions and it was ordered that if the conditions will not be
fulfilled, the petitioner's provisional anticipatory bail will be cancelled. The
petitioner has taken that provisional bail on the ground that he will deposit
Rs.8,17,50,000/- with the S.B.I., Hatia Branch after that order and will further
deposit Rs.4,08,75,000/-. On this ground, the co-ordinate Bench has granted
the provisional anticipatory bail, however, it further transpires that the said
condition has not been fulfilled and in view of that the provisional anticipatory
bail of the petitioner has been cancelled in terms of the order passed by the co-
ordinate Bench. It has been pointed out that the petitioner was granted interim
bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for four weeks and when he has
2025:JHHC:24300
surrendered before the learned court, the petitioner has produced the forged
Covid-19 Certificate. In view of these facts, the Court has to consider as to
whether the petitioner, who is having such a mind-set, is fit to be released on
regular bail even on the ground that the co-accused have been granted regular
bail, or not? The matters to be considered in an application for bail are
whether;
(i) there is any prima-facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused has committed the offence;
(ii) the nature and gravity of the charge;
(iii)the severity of punishment in the event of
conviction;
(iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing on
being released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and
standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
being tampered with; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by
grant of bail.
10. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the
evidence or witnesses may not be a ground for refusal of bail, however,
if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would
intimidate the witnesses or if there is materials to show that he will use his
liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail is required to
be refused. This aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of State of U.P., Through C.B.I. v. Amarmani Tripathi
reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21.
11. What has been discussed hereinabove, the petitioner, by way of
submitting that he will deposit certain amount with the Bank, the provisional
anticipatory bail was granted by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
2025:JHHC:24300
However, the said undertaking before the Court was not complied with and
in view of that the provisional anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been
cancelled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further granted the petitioner
interim bail and the petitioner by way of forged Covid-19 Certificate, has
tried to further obtain bail from the learned trial court which clearly suggest
that the petitioner, in either way, or by any means, seeks to obtain bail.
12. The allegation against the petitioner is serious in nature and
Mid-Day Meal account has been misappropriated. There is no doubt that
even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that
the bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar under the
relevant enactment passed by the Legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence
provides so, as has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of P.Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement reported in
(2020) 13 SCC 791, but at the same time, the consideration will have to
be on case to case basis, on the facts involved therein and seeking the
presence of the accused, to stand trial. The bail is being granted on certain
conditions in appropriate cases and the object of putting such conditions
should be to avoid the possibility by the person hampering the investigation.
The conduct of the petitioner and further the charge against the petitioner is
required to be considered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the
economic offence in the case of "Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India"
reported in (2014) 8 SCC 768, "Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. C.B.I."
reported (2013) 7 SCC 439 and in the case of "Union of India v.
Hassan Ali Khan" reported in (2011) 10 SCC 235 and the gist of those
judgments speak of that economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies
and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and
considered as a grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a
2025:JHHC:24300
whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the
country. This Court is conscious of the fact that the bail is the rule and
denial of bail is exception, however, in the facts and circumstance of each
case, that has to be considered by the Court.
13. The judgment relied by learned Senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner in the case of Prem Prakash v. Union of
India(supra) was decided in the facts and circumstances of that case. In
that case, the petitioner was in custody for over one year and the trial was
not yet commenced and, in that background, the said order was passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. So far as the present case is concerned, in
which the petitioner is in custody, the trial has already been proceeded and
seven witnesses have been examined. In course of the argument, it has
been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent C.B.I. that by March, 2026, the prosecution will adduce all the
evidences and even the C.B.I is considering to reduce the number of the
witnesses to be produced before the learned court. Ajay Oraon, who is
co-accused, has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
B.A. No.8703 of 2019 considering that this petitioner has been granted
provisional anticipatory bail. So far as Ajay Oraon is concerned, further the
allegation against Ajay Oraon of producing the forged certificate and not
complying with any of the condition on which the provisional bail has been
obtained, was not there. The petitioner herein has taken anticipatory bail
submitting that certain amount will be deposited which has not been
complied with and thereafter, the provisional bail of the petitioner was
cancelled. Further, by way of producing forged Covid-19 Certificate the
petitioner tried to obtain bail. The case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central
Bureau of Investigation(supra) was decided in the facts and
2025:JHHC:24300
circumstances of that case and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court therein, and in that case also it has been observed, that upon only the
belief that the accused will temper with the evidences if he is left with liberty
and further in only extra circumstances the bail should be denied.
14. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the conduct of
the petitioner clearly suggest that the petitioner will temper with the
evidence once liberty is granted, cannot be ruled out, and it is further
well-settled that the judgments are applicable in the facts and circumstances
of each case.
15. Considering that the C.B.I. has disclosed on affidavit that by
March, 2026, the trial will be concluded and further the C.B.I is trying
to reduce the number of witnesses to be produced before the learned trial
court, and seeing the conduct of the petitioner, the gravity of the charge
and tampering with the evidences if the petitioner will put at liberty, he will
not influence the witnesses cannot be ruled out as such, this Court is not
inclined to grant this petitioner regular bail, at this stage, and hence, the
prayer for regular bail of this petitioner is, hereby, rejected.
16. However, it is open to the petitioner that if the trial is not
concluded by March, 2026, the petitioner may renew is prayer for bail.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/ ,
