Jharkhand High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in High-Profile Corruption Case

Vision Hospitality Services Director's Plea Rejected Due to Allegations of Forged Bank Guarantees and Economic Offences

In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has denied the anticipatory bail application of Parmar Bipinbhai, a director of M/s Vision Hospitality Services & Consultants Pvt. Ltd., who is implicated in a corruption case involving forged bank guarantees. The case, which has drawn considerable attention, involves allegations of deep-rooted conspiracies and substantial financial losses to public funds.

The petitioner, Parmar Bipinbhai, was apprehending arrest in connection with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Ranchi P.S. Case 09 of 2025. The allegations stem from the submission of fraudulent bank guarantees by Vision Hospitality, purportedly to secure a tender floated by the Jharkhand State Beverage Corporation Limited (JSBCL) for manpower supply to retail liquor shops.

The High Court, presided by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., highlighted the gravity of economic offences, underscoring that such crimes require a different approach in bail matters. The court emphasized that offences involving significant public fund losses and conspiracy necessitate serious consideration, thereby rejecting anticipatory bail except in exceptional circumstances.

During the proceedings, Mr. A.K. Kashyap, senior counsel for the petitioner, argued that Parmar Bipinbhai, as a director, should not be held liable for the alleged misconduct by a company representative, Niraj Kumar Singh. However, the court noted substantial evidence indicating the company's involvement in submitting forged documents to both the corporation and the High Court.

The court also addressed the filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings, viewing it as a severe interference with the administration of justice. The judgment referenced several precedents from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, affirming the critical nature of the allegations and the need for stringent judicial scrutiny.

In light of the evidence presented, the court concluded that there was sufficient material to suggest the petitioner's involvement in the alleged economic offences, dismissing the bail application. The case underscores the judiciary's firm stance against corruption and its commitment to upholding the integrity of judicial processes.

Bottom Line:

Economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies and causing significant loss to public funds are considered grave offences, requiring a stricter approach in bail matters. Filing false affidavits in court amounts to direct interference with the administration of justice.

Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended in 2018) Sections 7(C), 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a); Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 61(2), 318, 336, 340, 316, 45, 49.

Parmar Bipinbhai @ Bipin Jadavbhai Parmar @ Parmar Bipin Jadav Bhai v. State of Jharkhand, (Jharkhand) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2808662