Jharkhand High Court
Dr Pradeep Kumar Singh vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 19 November, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
[2025:JHHC:34512]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 2545 of 2025
Dr Pradeep Kumar Singh, Aged about 60 Years, Son
of Late Sukhdeo Singh, Aadhar-728007054459,
Mobile no-9431124155 by faith Hindu, Category-
General, presently Resident of Flat No 602, Sundram
Apartment, Dhirendrapuram, Dhaiya, P.O., P.S. and
District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand, 826001 and permanent
resident of Village and P.O.-Chhata, P.S.- Basudih
Road, Dist.-Ballia, U.P.277210.
..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The Central Bureau of Investigation through the
Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. and
District-Dhanbad.
..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate.
: Mr. Harshit Sahay, Advocate.
: Mr. Jagdeesh, Advocate.
For the CBI : Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, Advocate.
------
12/ 19.11.2025 Heard Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, learned counsel appearing for the CBI.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with
CBI/SPE/ACB Dhanbad FIR No. RC 4(A)/2023D, registered for the
offences under Sections 102-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption
Act and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018, pending in the court of
learned ADJ-III-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was posted as Director, Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research
[2025:JHHC:34512]
[CSIR-CIMFR] from 08.12.2015 to 07.12.2021. He submits that the
petitioner retired on 31.12.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation
as Chief Scientist and Head of Research Group, Rock Excavation
Engineering. He also submits that during his tenure, CIMFR, Dhanbad
has awarded the prestigious CSIR Technology awards for the years
2017, 2018 and 2019. He then submits that the CSIR guidelines for
Technology Transfer and Utilization of Knowledgebase-2017 deals
with distribution of honorarium from licensing of intellectual property
and knowledgebase consultancy and fee from sponsored research
projects / schemes as well as the contract research and development
projects and scientific and technology projects. He refers to Chapers-7
and 8, which deals with sharing of monies realized with staff and
pattern of distribution.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws the
attention of the court towards Page-299 of the petition, which is the
MoU and submits that the effective date, duration and termination of
the MoU is governed by S.8.1. which shall be valid w.e.f. 1 st January,
2016 or the date of signing of MoU as the case may be and shall
remain in force for the period of ten years with a provision to extend
for another five years.
5. By way of referring the Management council Arrangement,
which is Clause-65 of Memorandum of Association Rules and
Regulations and Bye-Laws (Page-90 of the petition), he submits that
how the management council has to be formed that has been disclosed
therein. He submits that the petitioner happened to be the Director, the
Members prescribed at (ii) to (vi) were required to be nominated by the
Director General, CSIR. He further submits that the petitioner
[2025:JHHC:34512]
happened to be the only Director of National Laboratory and functions
as a Chairman. He then submits that the decision was taken on
12.3.2021 to disburse the honorarium in favour of the beneficiaries,
who participated in one or the other projects. He then submits that in
light of the decision, on 25.03.2021, the disbursement of the
honorarium has been made to all the beneficiaries and staffs.
According to him, the Management Council consists of seven persons,
however, the FIR has been registered against two persons i.e. petitioner
and one Ashok Kumar Singh. By way of referring Clause-67 of the
Memorandum of Association Rules and Regulations and Bye-Laws he
submits that the proceedings of the Management Council shall be
approved by its Chairman and the Director General as its Principal
Executive Officer is having the power to review / amend any of the
decisions of the Management Council. He submits that the said Clause-
67 has not been modified and in view of that the petitioner has acted
Bonafide and honorarium has been paid to all the beneficiaries and
staffs. He further submits that the letter dated 26.03.2021, as contained
in Annexure-5 of the petition, by which, the direction has been made to
stop the honorarium, is of later dated, whereas the honorarium has been
released on 25.03.2021. He next submits that the petitioner has been
directed to deposit the amount by the letter dated 12.04.2021, which is
contained in Annexure-8 of the petition and by way of referring the
said document, he submits that the gross amount is Rs. 21611000.00,
the TDS is Rs. 10858771.00 and the net amount paid to the petitioner
is Rs. 10752229.00. He then submits that the said amount of Rs.
10752229.00 has already been deposited by the petitioner and the Bank
Challan has been brought on record by way of Annexure-9 to the
[2025:JHHC:34512]
petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the FIR has been registered on 25.06.2023 for the alleged
misappropriation of the year 2021. He submits that ceiling of
honorarium has been lifted by Chapter-8.1. He then submits that the
account of the petitioner, his wife and his children were seized by the
CBI, however, on the application filed by the petitioner before the
learned court and the learned court has been pleased to de-freeze the
account with the condition that the amount involved shall be kept in
the account and that will not be allowed to be withdrawn and no
transaction can be made. In these backgrounds, he submits that
anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied in
the case of Sushila Aggarwal Versus State (NCT of Delhi), reported in
(2020) 5 SCC 1. Relying on the said judgment, he submits that the said
decision is of the Five Judges Bench, wherein it has been observed that
if the prayer for bail is being considered by the court, the court has to
look into the several circumstances as to whether the petitioner is at
flying risk or he was involved in another case or there is possibility of
involving him in any other case on his release and to look into the
nature and gravity of offences and that has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the said judgment. He further refers to the said
judgment and submits that the arrest should be the last option. On these
backgrounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided
to the petitioner and further the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the
investigation.
8. Per contra, Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, learned counsel
[2025:JHHC:34512]
appearing for the CBI has opposed the prayer and draws the attention
of the court to the contents of the FIR and submits that it has been
alleged that a meeting was held on 28.10.2015 at New Delhi under the
Chairmanship of Hon'ble Minister of State (I/c) for Coal, Power and
NRE in the presence of representatives of Coal consuming Power
Sector and Coal Producing bodies, wherein CSIR-CIMFR was
appointed as Third Party Sampling Agency on behalf of Power Utility
and Coal companies and was responsible for the work of sampling and
analysis of coal. He submits that allegations are there that 304 coal
sampling projects were created by CSIR-CIMFR by combining several
agreements into one project and further several projects were created
from one specific agreement by curtailing its tenure from 10 years and
specifying the quantity of coal to be sampled in the project to facilitate
the distribution of intellectual fee. He next submits that the petitioner
happened to be the then Director, Chief Scientist/HORG, thereby
conspired with unknown others with intention to share the intellectual
fee by violating para-8.1.1 of CSIR Guidelines. He then submits that
total honorarium / intellectual fee / project fee amounting to
Rs.1,39,79,97,871/- approx has been distributed in coal sampling
Scientists/Technical projects since 2016 Officers/Administrative
Staff/other staff of CIMFR, in violation of para 8.1.3 & 8.11 of the
CSIR Guidelines for Technology Transfer and Utilization of
Knowledgebase, 2005 & 2017. He submits that the allegation is there
against the petitioner of receiving intellectual fee of Rs. 15,36,72,000/-
(approx) through 304 Coal Sampling Projects in violation of the CSIR
Guidelines for Technology Transfer and Knowledgebase, 2005 and
2017.
[2025:JHHC:34512]
9. Learned counsel further submits that in light of Clause-
8.2.12, at least limitation period with regard to any complaint is
required to be maintained, however, decision was taken on 22.03.2021
and just after three days without waiting for 30 days period prescribed
in Clause-8.2.12, the honorarium has been disbursed.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI draws the attention
of the court to the counter affidavit filed by the CBI and submits that
from the investigation, it reveals that the Management Council (MC)
during 32nd meeting held on 22.03.2021 at CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad
recommended distribution of honorarium to officials (beneficiaries) of
CIMFR approved by the petitioner, however, the honorarium was paid
on 25.03.2021 contrary to the requisite period of thirty (30) days as per
para 8.1.4(0) of CSIR Technology Transfer Guidelines, 2017. He next
submits that the restriction to distribute the honorarium was made on
26.03.2021, however, on 25.03.2021, the disbursement of the
honorarium has been made to all the beneficiaries and staffs and in that
view of the matter, the petitioner is required to make out the parameters
of in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. Versus State of Bihar & Anr., reported in
2024 INSC 202, where in para-24, the Hon'ble Supreme court has held
as follows:-
"24. We have already held that the power to
grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary
power. Though in many cases it was held
that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by
any stretch of imagination, be said that
anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be
the rule and the question of its grant should
be left to the cautious and judicious
discretion by the Court depending on the
[2025:JHHC:34512]
facts and circumstances of each case. While
called upon to exercise the said power, the
Court concerned has to be very cautious as
the grant of interim protection or protection
to the accused in serious cases may lead to
miscarriage of justice and may hamper the
investigation to a great extent as it may
sometimes lead to tampering or distraction
of the evidence. We shall not be understood
to have held that the Court shall not pass
an interim protection pending
consideration of such application as the
Section is destined to safeguard the freedom
of an individual against unwarranted arrest
and we say that such orders shall be passed
in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when
warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued,
the applicant is not entitled to invoke the
extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not
deprive the power of the Court to grant pre-
arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in
the interest of justice. But then, person(s)
continuously, defying orders and keep
absconding is not entitled to such grant."
11. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI also submits that
the case of Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. (Supra) is distinguishable in the
facts and circumstances of the present case, as that case is not arising
out of Prevention of Corruption Act and so far as economic offence is
concerned, that has also been considered in the said case and it was
held that the economic offence need a different approach.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI also relied in the
case of Devinder Kumar Bansal Versus State of Punjab, reported in
(2025) 4 SCC 493 and he refers to paras-21, 24, 30 and 35. Relying on
this judgment, he submits that the principle, governing grant of
anticipatory bail are distinct and different from the principles as
regards the grant of regular bail. On these grounds, he submits that
[2025:JHHC:34512]
anticipatory bail of the petitioner may kindly be rejected.
13. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel
appearing for the parties, the court has gone through the materials
available on record including the relevant documents, annexures
brought on record by way of filing counter affidavit and supplementary
affidavit. The dispute in the present case is with regard to honorarium
release / paid to the beneficiaries and the staffs of CSIR-CIMFR and
allegations are made that decision has been taken on 12.03.2021 to
release the honorarium and on 25.03.2021, the honorarium has been
released. The document brought on record as Annexure-5 is dated
26.03.2021, by which, the honorarium was directed to be stopped till
further orders, but this decision is of 26.03.2021, however the decision
to pay the honorarium has already been taken on 12.03.2021 and
honorarium has also been paid on 25.03.2021. The said release was
pursuant to the approval of the Standing committee and thereafter the
Managing Committee has accorded the approval and thereafter the
amount was disbursed on 25.03.2025 to the beneficiaries and staffs.
14. The document contained in Annexure-8, which is dated
12.04.2021, whereby the CSIR-CIMFR has directed the petitioner to
deposit the amount of Rs. 21611000.00 and in the said document itself
it has been disclosed that the income tax deducted as Rs. 10858771.00
and the amount paid to the petitioner was also mentioned therein as Rs.
10752229.00 and pursuant to that the petitioner has already deposited a
sum of Rs. 10752229.00, which is contained in Annexure-9 of the
petition, which is the copy of the Bank challan of depositing the said
amount in the account of CSIR-CIMFR.
15. There is no doubt that in the economic offence, the
[2025:JHHC:34512]
seriousness and gravity of the allegation are required to be considered
by the court and if that is there, the courts are very slow in granting the
anticipatory bail. Admittedly, the petitioner has already retired now and
there is no chance that the petitioner is going to do any mischief like
that. The procedures are prescribed in the guidelines and bye laws, the
caption of honorarium has been removed with effect from 01.06.2005
and that has come in chapter-8.1.4(s), prima facie it appears that the
petitioner has co-operated in the investigation and the direction issued
by the CSIR-CIMFR has also been followed by the petitioner and he
has already retired now and in the attending facts and circumstances of
the case, I am inclined to provide the privilege of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner.
16. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is hereby
directed to surrender before the learned court within three weeks from
today, and in the event of her surrender/arrest, the petitioner, above
named, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), with two sureties of the like amount
each, to the satisfaction of learned ADJ-III-cum-Special Judge, CBI,
Dhanbad in connection with CBI/SPE/ACB Dhanbad FIR No. RC
4(A)/2023D, subject to the condition that the petitioner will deposit his
Passport before the learned court and he will not leave the country
without permission of the learned court and further he will co-operate
in the investigation as also subject to the conditions laid down under
section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated:-19.11.2025
Amitesh/-
