The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, before the bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, has dismissed an anticipatory bail application (A. B. A. No. 4596 of 2025) filed by a director of a manpower supply company. The petitioner, Parmar Bipinbhai, was apprehending arrest in a case involving allegations of submitting forged bank guarantees to the Jharkhand State Beverage Corporation Limited (JSBCL) and subsequently filing false affidavits before the High Court. The Court, in its order dated 10.11.2025, ruled that “no case of anticipatory bail is made out,” classifying the matter as a serious “economic offence” that requires a different approach than ordinary bail matters.
Background of the Case
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with ACB, Ranchi P.S. Case 09 of 2025. This case was registered under sections 316, 318, 336, 340, 45, 49, and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as Sections 7(C), 12, 13(1)(a), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The First Information Report (FIR) was based on a Preliminary Enquiry (03/24), which alleged that two manpower supply agencies, including M/s Vision Hospitality Services & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (of which the petitioner is a director), colluded in a criminal conspiracy. They are accused of using fake bank documents and forgery to cause loss to government revenue in their dealings with the Excise and Prohibition Department, Jharkhand.
The FIR alleges that M/s Vision Hospitality submitted a fake bank guarantee (BG) for Rs. 5,35,35,241/- on 12.08.2023. This was later replaced with another BG from Punjab & Sind Bank on 28.12.2023. When JSBCL moved to invoke this second BG due to non-deposit of differential sales amounts, M/s Vision Hospitality filed a writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 904/2025) in the Jharkhand High Court.
In that writ proceeding, the High Court directed the placement agency to extend the bank guarantee. Subsequently, JSBCL officials conducted a physical verification on 19.03.2025 and 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.”
The FIR also notes that the company, when asked for clarification, claimed its local representative, Neeraj Kumar Singh, and another individual had committed fraud and that Singh had also submitted a fake BG extension letter to the High Court.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, argued that Parmar Bipinbhai was merely one of the directors. He submitted that the company had authorized Neeraj Kumar Singh to sign the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and handle all formalities.
The counsel contended that “all the responsibilities was upon Niraj Kumar Singh and if any mischief has been done by said Niraj Kumar Singh, petitioner cannot be held liable for the same.” It was also pointed out that the company itself had not been made an accused.
The petitioner’s counsel further submitted that in W.P.(C) No. 904 of 2025, an interim order was vacated after the Advocate General informed the Division Bench that the BG was forged. The petitioner argued he was not a signatory to any document filed in that writ petition. Counsel relied on the judgments in Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat, S.K. Singh Vs. State of U.P., and Sushil Sethi and Another Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh to argue for bail on the grounds that the company was not an accused.
State’s (ACB) Arguments
Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), vehemently opposed the bail application. He argued that Niraj Kumar Singh acted on behalf of M/s Vision Hospitality.
Mr. Gadodia submitted that the performance guarantee was issued pursuant to an application made by M/s Vision Hospitality, not Niraj Kumar Singh. He further stated that investigation revealed a purported bank letter confirming the BG’s authenticity was also forged.
Crucially, the counsel pointed out that the request to substitute the first forged BG with the second forged BG was made by M/s Vision Hospitality, and the application for the second BG also named the company as the applicant.
The ACB’s counsel produced a letter from Punjab and Sind Bank, dated 20.03.2025, which stated the bank had “neither any account nor any banking relationship with Vision Hospitality Service & Consultants Pvt. Ltd” and that the email ID on the BG was fraudulent.
Mr. Gadodia also detailed the proceedings before the Division Bench in W.P.(C) No. 904 of 2025, where the company obtained a stay of invocation and later filed a supplementary affidavit claiming the BG had been extended. This claim was proven false by the Advocate General, leading the Division Bench to vacate its interim order.
The counsel submitted, “not only the Corporation even the Hon’ble Division Bench has not been spared by the petitioner,” and that “such act of the petitioner is deprecable as it is direct interference in the administration of justice.”
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, after hearing both parties and examining the record, rejected the petitioner’s “only defence” that he was not liable for the actions of Niraj Kumar Singh.
The Court observed, “To examine this submission the Court has minutely considered the documents… Page 63 is performance guarantee… this is bank guarantee that has been issued pursuant to application made by M/s Vision Hospitality… Here in the said bank guarantee Niraj Kumar Singh is not an applicant.”
The Court noted that the stamp duty receipt, the letter requesting BG replacement (signed by the Managing Director), and the application for the second BG were all in the name of M/s Vision Hospitality.
The judgment also highlighted a clause in the MoU between M/s Vision and Snigdha Enterprises (Niraj Kumar Singh’s firm) which stipulated that the BG was “required to be obtained by M/s Vision Hospitality.” The Court also pointed to the petitioner’s own bail application, which admitted Niraj Kumar Singh acted as a “Regional Manager,” which the Court termed an “admission of the petitioner that said Niraj Kumar Singh was appointed by the said company to do all these mischiefs.”
Regarding the writ petition, the Court found, “it is crystal clear that the said company of which the petitioner is Director has not spared even the Court by filing all false affidavits to the effect that bank guarantee has been extended…”
The Court concluded that the facts “clearly suggests the direct involvement of this petitioner in all these mischiefs” and stated, “Filing of the false affidavit is a serious thing which is direct interference with administration of justice…”
Decision
In its final determination, the Court held that there is “prima facie sufficient materials against the petitioner.”
The Court observed, “The petitioner is involved in the economic offence. It is well known that economic offence constitutes a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.”
Finding that the petitioner failed to make a case for anticipatory bail, the Court dismissed the application.
