Sheetal Jagan Desai, aged about 31 years, D/o Jagan Tukaram Desai, R/o 302, Saptgiri v. The State of Jharkhand through Anti-Corruption Bureau -------- CORAM: HON’BLE
Case Details
2025:JHHC:37046 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No.4930 of 2025 Sheetal Jagan Desai, aged about 31 years, D/o Jagan Tukaram Desai, R/o 302, Saptgiri CHS, Cosmos Hills, Pokhran, Road No. 1, Upvan P.O. Jekegram, P.S. Vartak Nagar, District Thane, Pin Code 400606, State Maharastra. …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through Anti-Corruption Bureau -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI … Opp. Party For the Petitioner ------ : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Indra Gosai, Advocate For the ACB : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Nivonit Choubey, Advocate Ms. Sanya Kumari, Advocate 2/10.12.2025 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on ------ behalf of Petitioner and Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the ACB. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with ACB Ranchi, P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025, for the offences registered under Sections 420, 468, 467,471, 409, 107, 109, 120B of IPC, corresponding to under Section 61(2) r/w 318/336/340/316/45 & 49 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 7(C), 12, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended by Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the prosecution story in nutshell as per the FIR is based on the Preliminary Enquiry No. 03/24 dated 27.08.2024. The order for 1 2025:JHHC:37046 preliminary inquiry was received under Section 17A (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide memo no. 3600391 dated 27.09.2024. It is alleged that during the preliminary enquiry, it came to light that mainly two placement agencies (manpower supply agencies) selected by the Excise and Prohibition Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, namely 1. M/s Vision Hospitality Services & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and 2. M/s Marshan Innovative Security Pvt. Ltd., in collusion and criminal conspiracy and forgery, used fake bank documents to cause loss to government revenue. 4. He further submits that it is further alleged that M/s Marshan Innovative Security Pvt. Ltd. submitted a fake bank guarantee no. 09356238G0001646 dated 28.11.2023 amounting to Rs. 5,02,07,576/-. It is further alleged that the same bank guarantee was never issued by the Bank and therefore, the same required to be replaced. It is also alleged that M/s Vision Hospitality Services & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. got replacement of old BG in place of new BG No.2023FBG020010105 dated 08.12.2023 amounting to Rs. 5,02,07,576/ of Bandhan Bank, Geeta Colony Branch, Delhi for Zone-4. For verification of the said new BG No. 2023FBG020010105, a letter no.2212 dated 22.12.2023 was issued to the Bandhan Bank, Geeta Colony Branch, New Delhi. In
Legal Reasoning
compliance with the said letter, confirmation for bank guarantee no. amounting to Rs. 5,02,07,576/- was received from the bank via email on 27.12.2023. 5. He next submits that it is also alleged that due to non-deposit of 2 2025:JHHC:37046 the differential amount against the sale, letter no. A/C-465/2024- 25/54 dated 09.01.2025 has raised a demand for Zone-4 amounting to Rs.7,57,08,874/- (Rupees Seven Crore Fifty-Seven Lakh Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy-Four Only) and directed to deposit the same within a period of three days. Against the said letter of the corporation, M/s Marshan Innovative Security Pvt. Ltd. filed W.P. (C) No. 414/2025 in the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The bank guarantee submitted by the placement agency was about to expire on 31.03.2025, on which JSBCL presented its case in the Hon’ble Court on which the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi passed an order dated 19.02.2025, wherein it was directed to extend the bank guarantee. The placement agency got the renewal of bank guarantee through letter no. Bandhan-2078/BG- Renewal/10105/2024-25 dated 18.03.2025. The JSBCL vide order No.05 dated 19.03.2025, deputed two officials/employees to physically verify the above bank guarantee at the concerned bank branch and it was reported that the said bank guarantee was neither issued by the bank nor are the letter head, signature stamp, etc., used on it is related to the bank. 6. He next submits that it is alleged that in the said context, the corporation issued a clarification regarding the submission of a fake bank guarantee to JSBCL through corporate letter no. A/C 470/25- 26/831 dated 08.04.2025. In response, the Company informed that its local representative Niraj Kumar Singh committed fraud in this matter and Niraj Kumar Singh also submitted a fake letter related to 3 2025:JHHC:37046 bank guarantee extension in the Hon’ble High Court, Jharkhand, Ranchi. 7. He further submits that it is also alleged that there are several complaints and credible allegations indicating that agencies like Vision Hospitality and Marshan Innovative Security were empaneled through fake documents, which appear to have been accepted without verification. Fake bank guarantees were deposited and accepted without SFMS verification. This act, in view of the large- scale risk to public funds, makes their long-term control and inaction, and their involvement, highly suspicious and demands immediate investigation under applicable penal and anti-corruption laws. He lastly submits that the petitioner is thoroughly innocent and has committed no offence whatsoever, and the allegations levelled against her is out of malice and is false and concocted, having no merits at all. 8.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset submits that the anticipatory bail application of co-accused Parmar Bipinbhai @ Bipin Jadavbhai Parmar @ Parmar Bipin Jadav Bhai has been rejected by this Court in ABA No.4596 of 2025 by order dated 10.11.2025. He submits that so far the case of the petitioner is concerned, in view of the said order of this Court, the case of the petitioner is distinguishable and the petitioner has a good case for anticipatory bail. He next submits that the Sheetal Jagan Desai is the daughter of Jagan Tukaram Desai. He next submits that Kamal Jagan Desai is the wife of Jagan Tukaram 4 2025:JHHC:37046 Desai and all three are the directors in the company namely M/s Marshan Innovative Security Pvt. Ltd. He next submits that so far the petitioner is concerned, there is no allegation and merely because, she is one of the directors, she has been called upon by the ACB to face the investigation. 9. He draws the attention of the Court towards the contention of the FIR, particularly at page-44 and submits that the allegation against M/s Marshan Innovative Security Pvt. Ltd. is made therein. Further he submits that at page 46 of Anticipatory Bail Application, which is the part of the FIR, in which, it has come that Jagan Tukaram Desai has replied to the JSBCL with regard to the forged bank guarantee and stated that has been done by Niraj Kumar Singh. He next submits that the allegations are also there against one Binay Kumar Choubey, who was the then MD of Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited (JSBCL). He also refers to page 49 and submits that one Niraj Kumar Singh has represented the company and he has done all mischiefs that have been stated in the FIR. He next submits that the show-cause has been issued by the JSBCL to the company M/s Marshan Innovative Security Pvt. Ltd. with regard to the bank guarantee, which was replied by the company and signed by Jagan Tukaram Desai. By way of inviting the attention of the Court to the Memorandum of Understanding, he submits, that has been signed by Niraj Kumar Singh. He next submits that the agreement with JSBCL and of the company was signed by Jagan Tukaram Desai. He also submits that before the High Court, 5 2025:JHHC:37046 WPC(Filing) No.414 of 2025 was filed by Yogendra Chari as representative of the company. He next submits that once all these facts have come to the knowledge of the company, the company has noticed to Niraj Kumar Singh and it was signed by Jagan Tukaram Desai. He also submits that the company has also lodged an online FIR against Niraj Kumar Singh contained in Annexure-11. He next submits that by way of Annexure-12, the company has invoked the arbitration clause. He also submits that Jagan Tukaram Desai has also replied to JSBCL by way of Annexure-17. He also submits that by way of Annexure-17, the reply of notice under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been made. He next submits that some of the co-accused have been granted default bail by the learned Court as the charge-sheet was not submitted. In these backgrounds, he submits that the petitioner being the daughter of Jagan Tukaram Desai was a sleeping director in the company and it was a family affair. He then submits in view of that vicarious liability cannot be fastened on the petitioner. He next submits that the petitioner may kindly be granted anticipatory bail. 10. He relied in the case of Shiv Kumar Jatia Vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (2019) 17 SCC 193 and Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2015) 4 SCC 609 and by way of relying, he submits that the vicarious liability with regard to the role of directors has been considered in these Judgments by Hon’ble Supreme Court and it has been held that once it is not proved that active participation is there of the director, the vicarious 6 2025:JHHC:37046 liability cannot be fastened. He also submits that so far, the rejection order of Parmar Bipinbhai @ Bipin Jadavbhai Parmar @ Parmar Bipin Jadav Bhai is concerned, is distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the petitioner is the daughter of Jagan Tukaram Desai and she has got no vicarious liability. On these grounds anticipatory bail may kindly be allowed. 11. Per contra, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the Anti-Corruption Bureau vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that this Court has already rejected the anticipatory bail application of co-accused in ABA No.4596 of 2025 and in view of that anticipatory bail of this petitioner may kindly be rejected. 12. He next submits that first bank guarantee was submitted before the JSBCL on 28.11.2023 and on 02.12.2023, the agreement was entered between the JSBCL and the company namely M/s Marshan Innovative Security Pvt. Ltd. and that was on the basis of forged bank guarantee. On 07.12.2023, JSBCL detected that the bank guarantee was forged one. He submits that the show cause was issued to the company on 07.12.2023 and on 08.12.2023, the reply was made by Jagan Tukaram Desai and liability has been fastened on the Branch Manager of the bank, wherein in Para 18 and 19 of the anticipatory bail application, the liability has been tried to be fastend upon Niraj Kumar Singh and replacement of the bank guarantee is also alleged against Niraj Kumar Singh. He next submits that the fresh bank guarantee was submitted on 08.12.2023, which was also forged one and on 09.01.2025, the demand has been issued by 7 2025:JHHC:37046 JSBCL, which was challenged by the company before the High Court in WP(C) No.1053 of 2025. He submits that in the said writ petition, the demand was challenged on the basis of the forged bank guarantee. 13. He next submits that this aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court by rejecting the bail application of Parmar Bipinbhai in ABA No.4596 of 2025 and he refers to Paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23 and 24 of ABA No.4596 of 2025. 14. He next submits that the company has authorized Yogendar Chari to file writ petition and he was authorized by the Board of Directors of the company and the company is Pvt. Ltd. Company and only three directors are there. He also submits that the I.O. has found that the petitioner is flight risk and that has been stated in Paragraph 19 and 28 of the counter affidavit. He submits that there is every possibility that the petitioner will escape from the country. He next submits that even in spite of notice under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Surkasha Sanhita, the petitioner has not appeared before the I.O. for investigation, which further strengthen the apprehension of ACB that the petitioner will escape from country. On these grounds, he submits that the anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.
Decision
15. In view of the above submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has minutely looked into the relevant documents, on which, the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for both the sides. The Bank guarantee 8 2025:JHHC:37046 was submitted before JSBCL on 21.11.2023 and on the basis of the forged bank guarantee; the agreement was entered on 02.12.2023 between JSBCL and M/s Marshan Innovative Security Pvt. Ltd. JSBCL detected about the forged bank guarantee on 07.12.2023. By way of letter dated 07.12.2023, JSBCL issued the show-cause to the company, which was replied on 08.12.2023 by Jagan Tukaram Desai, wherein all the liabilities has been tried to fasten upon the bank manager, however in Para 18 and 19 of the Anticipatory Bail Application, the liability has been tried to fasten on Niraj Kumar Singh. There are only three directors in the said company and the company is the Pvt. Ltd. Company and the Board of Directors have authorized Yogendar Chari to file writ petition before Division Bench of this Court and the writ petition being WPC (Filing) No.414 of 2025, which was filed on the basis of forged bank guarantee. Further it is admitted position that the petitioner happened to be director of M/s Marshan Innovative Security Pvt. Ltd. and the directors prima facie have maneuvered all these things. Niraj Kumar Singh has signed Memorandum of Understanding, who has been appointed by the said company and the defence has been taken that the petitioner has not signed any document. Memorandum of Understanding has been signed between M/s Marshan Innovative Security Pvt. Ltd. and Snigdha Enterprises, of which Niraj Kumar Singh is proprietor. The Financial Clause is quoted hereunder: “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 9 2025:JHHC:37046 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.” 16. In light of above Clause, Niraj Kumar Singh was required to give bank guarantee and the bank guarantee was required to be obtained by M/s Marshan Innovative Security Pvt. Ltd. in light of the above clause and the bank guarantee has been issued on the application of M/s Marshan Innovative Security Pvt. Ltd. It transpired that the said company has obtained the bank guarantee. In para-18 of anticipatory bail application, it has been stated that Niraj Kumar Singh was appointed as operational manager of M/s Marshan Innovative Security Pvt. Ltd., which further clearly suggest that Niraj Kumar Singh was appointed by the company, who has done all the mischief in collusion with the directors. Thus, it is admitted position that the bank guarantee has been obtained by M/s Marshan Innovative Security Pvt. Ltd. and that bank guarantee was found to be forged, which is the part of the letter. The first bank guarantee was found to be forged. Thereafter the company has asked Niraj Kumar Singh to submit a fresh bank guarantee, which was further submitted on 08.12.2023, which was also found to be, forged one and another letter of extension of bank guarantee was submitted before JSBCL on 18.03.2025, which was also found to be forged. Thrice on the basis of the forged document, the company has misled the JSBCL. 17. It is not denied by the petitioner that WP(C) No.1053 of 2025 was preferred by M/s Marshan Innovative Security Pvt. Ltd. before 10 2025:JHHC:37046 the Hon’ble Division Bench praying therein to invocation of bank guarantee and pursuant to that the said writ petition was taken on 13.01.2025 and on that day, following order has been passed: “Notice to the respondents. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned A.A.G.-II, accepts notice for respondents. issued by the the reasons Since the impugned proceeding dated 09.01.2025 gives no details as to how the amount of Rs. 7,57,08,874/- has been arrived at, and since previous letter dated respondents was 06.12.2024 Rs.8,00,25,482/-, and for discrepancy between the two demands of 06.12.2024 and 09.01.2025 are not indicated in the proceeding dated 09.01.2025 or communicated to the petitioner, prima facie, there appears to be violation of the principle of natural justice. Therefore, there shall be stay of invocation of the bank guarantee by the respondents, until further orders. List on 19.02.2025.” 18. Further the Hon’ble Division Bench has granted time to extend the bank guarantee to 30th April 2025 by order dated 19.02.2025 and also by order dated 18.03.2025. It has been noted in Para 22 of ABA No.4596 of 2025 that a supplementary affidavit was filed in the said writ petition, wherein in Para – 4, it has been stated that the bank guarantee has been extended. On the next day, the learned Advocate General appeared in the said case before the Hon’ble Division Bench and he has pointed out that both the bank guarantees are forged. The learned Advocate General has appeared on 26.03.2025 and produced the letter of the bank saying that the said bank guarantee has not been extended. 19. In light of above orders, the Hon’ble Division Bench has been pleased to vacate the interim order granted in favour of the said company and subsequently by order dated 03.4.2025, the said writ 11 2025:JHHC:37046 petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to initiate the arbitration proceeding. 20. In view of the above orders of the Division Bench, it is clear that the said company, in which, the petitioner is one of the directors has not even spare the Court by filing false affidavit to the effect that the bank guarantee has been extended and further on the basis of forged guarantee, the writ petition was filed. Admittedly, Niraj Kumar Singh was appointed as Operational Manager of the company and the bank guarantee has been obtained on the letter of his company namely M/s Marshan Innovative Security Pvt. Ltd. Argument has been made that all the mischief has been made by Niraj Kumar Singh, which is not acceptable in light of the above discussion. 21. Filing of false affidavit is a serious criminal offence, which is a direct interference in the administration of justice, that has been held in several judgments of High Courts as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court. 22. In Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (1985) 2 SCC 597 the Supreme Court has held that anticipatory bail to some extent intrudes in the sphere of investigation of crime and the Court must be cautious and circumspect in exercising such power of a discretionary nature. It has also been held that relevant considerations governing the Court’s decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, corresponding to section 482 of BNSS are materially different from those which should govern the 12 2025:JHHC:37046 decision on an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher Court. The Court has further held that status in life, affluence or otherwise, are hardly relevant considerations while examining the request for grant of anticipatory bail. 23. The parameter and factor based on the necessity and imperativeness of custodial interrogation, while considering anticipatory bail plea, has been the subject matter of consideration of the aforesaid Two-Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court in State represented by CBI v. Anil Sharma reported in [(1997) 7 SCC 187] In that case, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant/accused therein, on the premise that it is well-settled that bail and not jail is the normal rule. Being aggrieved thereby, the CBI had taken up the matter before the Apex Court, as they were aggrieved by the order of anticipatory bail, granted by the High Court, in favour of the accused. The Apex Court, in the aforesaid Anil Sharma’s (supra), held that the Court’s approach in dealing with anticipatory bail plea under Sec. 438 Corresponding to section 482 of BNSS, should not be the same as that in dealing with regular post-arrest bail applications and that, the High Court had erred therein by ignoring the apprehension expressed by the CBI that, considering the high office held by the applicant and wide influence he could wield, the Investigating Agency would be subjected to great handicap in interrogating him, in case he is granted pre-arrest bail. The factors to be considered in exercise of discretion by the anticipatory bail court was reckoned and it was held 13 2025:JHHC:37046 therein that the advantage in custodial interrogation of eliciting more useful information and material should be kept in view and the court has to presume that Police officers would conduct the custodial interrogation in a responsible manner, without using third-degree methods, etc. The offence alleged against the accused person therein was under Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 24. In case of Shiv Kumar Jatia (supra), where the charge-sheet was submitted and the entire facts was before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as such the said order was passed. Herein in the case in hand, the investigation is going on. Thus, the case relied by the petitioner is not helping. Further the case relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal (supra) Wherein it was held that when company is the accused, its director can be roped only if there is sufficient incriminating evidence against them coupled with criminal intent and the case in hand allegation are there directly on the directors and admittedly petitioner is one of the director of the company and there are sufficient materials on the record against her as such this case is not helping the petitioner. 25. In light of above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, when the petitioner is at flight risk. 26. As such, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected. 10.12.2025 Uploaded on 15.12.2025 R.Kumar (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 14