Jharkhand High Court
Upendranath Mandal vs The Superintendent Of Police on 29 October, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:32418
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 1823 of 2025
----
Upendranath Mandal, aged about 58 years, son of late Ramchandra
Mandal, resident of Flat No.1203L1, Tower-II, Uttara Tritiya, Street
No.672, Biswa Bangla Sarani, Near City Centre-II, Rajarhat, New
Town, PO New Town (Action Area-II), PS Eco Park, District North 24
Parganas, Kolkata -700161 (West Bengal) .... Petitioner(s)
-- Versus --
The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-
Corruption Branch, 2 Booty More, Morabadi, PO and PS Lalpur,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN 834008 .... Opp. Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, Advocate
For the C.B.I. :- Mr. Prashant Pallav, Spl.P.P., CBI
Ms. Shiwani Jaluka, Advocate
----
5/29.10.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as
well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent CBI.
2. This petition has been filed under section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for quashing the order dated 08.07.2022, order
dated 28.11.2022, order dated 07.03.2024 as well as order dated
02.05.2024, whereby the court of learned Special Judge, CBI at Ranchi
has been pleased to issue warrant against the petitioner and issued
processes under sections 82 as well as 83 CrPC respectively by those
orders in connection with RC 08(A)/2017-R pending in the court of
learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI- cum- Special Judge, CBI-II,
at Ranchi.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that summons have been issued upon the petitioner on
03.12.2020 and the petitioner has filed A.B.P No.2457 of 2020 before the
learned Sessions Judge on 22.11.2020 which was rejected by order dated
04.01.2021. He further submits that against the said order, the petitioner
has moved before this Court in A.B.A. No.963 of 2021 which was allowed
by order dated 15.07.2021 by coordinate Bench of this Court with
condition to deposit Rs.65 lacs to Bokaro Steel Limited and Rs.35 lacs to
Durgapur Steel Plant. He submits that the petitioner thereafter moved
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Cr) No.7065 of 2021 against
the order dated 15.7.2021 passed in A.B.A. No.963 of 2021 and the same
was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 23.09.2021. He then
submits that the petitioner has also filed Cr.M.P.No.3191 of 2021 on
23.11.2021 before this Court for extension of the order dated 15.07.2021
passed in A.B.A. No.963 of 2021 for eight weeks. He then submits that
however the same has been dismissed as withdrawn on 8.12.2023. He
next submits that the petitioner has moved before the Hon'ble Calcutta
High Court in W.P.A. No.17203 of 2022 which was dismissed on the point
of jurisdiction by order dated 06.12.2022. He then submits that thereafter
the petitioner has moved before this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No.4/ 2023
challenging the sanction order as well as the order taking cognizance and
the same petition was dismissed by the order dated 01.11.2023. He then
submits that the petitioner against the order of the Hon'ble Court passed
in W.P.(Cr.) No.4 of 2023 moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
S.L.P. (Cr.) Diary No.49739 of 2023 and by the order dated 15.3.2024,
until further orders, the proceeding of the learned trial court was stayed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and he then submits that finally the said
SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 30.01.2025. He
further submits that in the aforesaid background the learned court has
wrongly passed the aforesaid order of NBW and issued processes under
sections 82 and 83 Cr.PC and in view of that the same may kindly be
quashed. He then submits that in light of the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central
Bureau of Investigation and Another, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51,
the petitioner is required to be released on bail. He further submits that
during pendency of the stay order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
the order dated 02.05.2024 has been passed by which process under
section 83 Cr.PC has been directed to be issued. On these grounds, he
submits that the impugned orders may kindly be set aside.
4. Mr. Prashant Pallav, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent CBI opposed the prayer and submits that anticipatory bail of
the petitioner was allowed by the order dated 15.07.2021 based on the
undertaking of the petitioner that he will deposit Rs.65 lacs to Bokaro
Steel Plant and Rs.35 lacs to Durgapur Steel Plant and in view of such
undertaking of the petitioner, with condition, the petitioner was directed
to surrender before the learned court within four months. He submits that
the petitioner has not deposited the same and even the prayer made to
take further extension has been dismissed as withdrawn and against the
order of the coordinate Bench in the anticipatory bail application, the
petitioner has moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He then submits
that the case has been registered in the State of Jharkhand however the
Hon'ble Calcutta High Court jurisdiction has been invoked and Hon'ble
Calcutta High Court has refused to entertain the same on the ground of
territorial jurisdiction and thereafter the petitioner has filed W.P.(Cr.) No.4
of 2023 challenging the sanction order and the order taking cognizance
which has been dismissed by this Court and against the same the
petitioner has moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Cr.)
Diary No. 49739 of 2023 however that has been further dismissed. He
further submits that the petitioner was indulged in delaying tactics and
forum shopping to evade the trial and the matter is pending since last
four years and above orders have been passed only to secure the
appearance of the petitioner. He submits that there is no illegality in the
impugned orders. He next fairly submits that the learned court was not
required to pass the order dated 02.05.2024 for issuance of the process
under section 83 Cr.PC in view of the fact that at that time, the stay
granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was operating. He submits,
however, the said S.L.P was dismissed on 30.01.2025.
5. In view of above submission of the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the parties the Court has gone through the materials on record
as well as the impugned orders. It is an admitted position that the
petitioner has moved before this Court after rejection of the said prayer
by the learned Sessions Judge in ABA No.963 of 2021 and in that ABA the
coordinate Bench of this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the
petitioner subject to the payment of Rs.65 lacs to Bokaro Steel Plant and
Rs.35 lacs to Durgapur Steel Plant and that order was passed on the
undertaking and submission made by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and the petitioner has further sought extension to
surrender and payment of the said amount which has been further
dismissed as withdrawn. The A.B.A order of this Court was challenged
before Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed. The petitioner
has challenged the sanction order before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court
and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has been pleased to dismiss the
same on the ground of jurisdiction and thereafter the petitioner has
moved in W.P.(Cr.) No.4 of 2023 before this Court which has been further
dismissed and against that order the petitioner has filed Special Leave
(Cr) Diary No. 49739 of 2023. Initially the stay was granted however the
same was dismissed on 30.01.2025. These facts clearly suggest that the
petitioner on one or another ground, has tried to delay the proceeding.
The FIR was registered in the year 2021 and till date, the petitioner has
not appeared and even the anticipatory bail was allowed to the petitioner
and said anticipatory bail was granted on the undertaking of the
petitioner and the petitioner has not complied the same and the same
was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the petitioner has also
attempted to challenge the order of sanction as well as the order taking
cognizance dated 28.11.2022, which has been dismissed upto the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
6. In course of the proceeding the Court has asked the learned
counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to move
before the learned court by way of filing the proper petition on the
strength of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the
case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and
Another(supra) however the petitioner on instruction, submits that
order may kindly be passed as the petitioner is not ready to surrender.
7. In view of above facts and considering that the petitioner is
not ready to surrender before the learned court on the strength of the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar
Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another(supra), the
Court finds that there is no illegality so far as the impugned orders dated
08.07.2022, 28.11.2023 and 07.03.2024 are concerned, and as such, this
petition is, hereby, dismissed, so far as these orders are concerned.
8. However, the Court finds that the learned court was not
required to pass the order dated 02.05.2024, as at this time, the stay
granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave (Cr.) Diary No.
49739 of 2023 was operating, and as such, that order is not in
accordance with law, hence, the order dated 02.05.2024 is, hereby,
set-aside, however, the said SLP was further dismissed on 30.01.2025 by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9. This Criminal M.P., being Cr.M.P. No.1823 of 2025, is allowed,
in part, in the above terms.
10. Learned court will proceed further in accordance with law.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated : 29th Oct.,2025
SI/
