[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Arvind Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 16 April, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 7455 of 2025
Arvind Singh, son of late Gopal Singh.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Anti-corruption Bureau
... ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shashank Mishra, Advocate
: Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
: Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate
: Ms. Sanya Kumari, Advocate
: Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate
---
06/16.04.2026 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant at Chhattisgarh and he is not even
remotely connected with the entire state of affairs regarding the excise
department in Chhattisgarh or the excise department of the State of
Jharkhand. However, he is an accused in connection with similar case
which has been lodged at Chhattisgarh and he was required to appear
in the Court at Chhattisgarh from time to time.
2. The learned counsel submits that the counter affidavit filed in
the present case reveals that 3 notices under Section 35 (3) of BNSS
dated 07.08.2025, 25.08.2025 and 02.09.2025 were sent through
registered covered to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not appear.
3. With respect to each of the notices, he has given the following
dates:
(i) Notice dated 07.08.2025 was received by the petitioner
on 17.08.2025 and he was directed to appear on
19.08.2025. He submits that on 20.08.2025, the date was
fixed at Chhattisgarh court, and therefore, he responded
by saying that he would be unable to attend and another
date may be fixed in the 1st week of September.
(ii) So far as the 2nd notice dated 25.08.2025 is concerned,
the date fixed for appearance was 02.09.2025 and he
received the same on 04.09.2025, and therefore, there
was no occasion for him to appear and this was also
intimated to the authority.
(iii) Thereafter, 3rd notice dated 02.09.2025 was issued which
was received by him on 09.09.2025 and he was to appear
on 18.09.2025. He has stated that the same was also
responded and the response has been annexed along with
the rejoinder to the counter affidavit.
4. However, in spite of opportunity granted by this Court to the
learned counsel for the petitioner during the court proceedings, the
learned counsel could not show any dispatch of the response in
connection with the 3rd notice under section 35 of BNSS although
the reply has been annexed along with the rejoinder to the counter
affidavit.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
if any interim protection is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner is
still ready and willing to appear before the authorities and is ready to
co-operate with the investigation, but in absence of any protection, it
is all likelihood that the petitioner will be taken into custody.
6. He has also referred to order of anticipatory bail passed in the
case of Binay Kumar Singh by the learned district court vide order
dated 07.07.2025 to submit that the co-accused has been granted the
privilege of anticipatory bail by the district court itself.
7. The learned counsel for the opposite party ACB has opposed
the prayer and submitted that the petitioner was a part of the
syndicate, who was involved in the alleged offence. He has further
submitted that the petitioner was the person who used to collect the
commission on behalf of the co-accused.
8. The learned counsel has further submitted that merely because
he is an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant, the same does not mean that
he cannot be involved in the alleged offence. Rather the petitioner is
involved in similar nature of offence relating to the excise department
in the State of Chhattisgarh also in which he has enlarged on bail and
the bail order has been annexed along with the anticipatory bail
application itself at Annexure - 2, with certain conditions.
9. The learned counsel has further submitted that the statement of
the co-accused/witnesses have been recorded under Section 180 as
well as under Section 183 BNSS, who have disclosed the manner in
which the syndicate has worked in commission of the alleged offence.
The persons whose statement has been recorded under section
180/183 BNSS are as under: -
i. Case diary no. 49 u/s 183 BNSS - Amit Mittal
ii. Case diary no.45 u/s 180 BNSS - Vidhu Gupta
iii. Case diary no.55 u/s 180 BNSS - Atul Singh and Mukesh
Manchanda
iv. Case diary no.46 u/s 180 BNSS - Sanjeev Jain, Rajeev
Dwivedi and Manish Jain.
10. The learned counsel submits that it's a case of deep-rooted
conspiracy and therefore custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
required. The petitioner is required to be confronted with the other co-
accused persons during the course of interrogation and therefore the
petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
11. Order is reserved.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Date of Order:16.04.2026
Saurav
Date of Uploading:16.04.2026
