Jharkhand High Court
Dr Pradeep Kumar Singh vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 19 November, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
[2025:JHHC:34512]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 2545 of 2025
Dr Pradeep Kumar Singh, Aged about 60 Years, Son
of Late Sukhdeo Singh, Aadhar-728007054459,
Mobile no-9431124155 by faith Hindu, Category-
General, presently Resident of Flat No 602, Sundram
Apartment, Dhirendrapuram, Dhaiya, P.O., P.S. and
District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand, 826001 and permanent
resident of Village and P.O.-Chhata, P.S.- Basudih
Road, Dist.-Ballia, U.P.277210.
..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The Central Bureau of Investigation through the
Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. and
District-Dhanbad.
..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate.
: Mr. Harshit Sahay, Advocate.
: Mr. Jagdeesh, Advocate.
For the CBI : Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, Advocate.
------
12/ 19.11.2025 Heard Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, learned counsel appearing for the CBI.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with CBI/SPE/ACB Dhanbad FIR No. RC 4(A)/2023D, registered for the offences under Sections 102-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018, pending in the court of learned ADJ-III-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted as Director, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research -1- [2025:JHHC:34512] [CSIR-CIMFR] from 08.12.2015 to 07.12.2021. He submits that the petitioner retired on 31.12.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation as Chief Scientist and Head of Research Group, Rock Excavation Engineering. He also submits that during his tenure, CIMFR, Dhanbad has awarded the prestigious CSIR Technology awards for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019. He then submits that the CSIR guidelines for Technology Transfer and Utilization of Knowledgebase-2017 deals with distribution of honorarium from licensing of intellectual property and knowledgebase consultancy and fee from sponsored research projects / schemes as well as the contract research and development projects and scientific and technology projects. He refers to Chapers-7 and 8, which deals with sharing of monies realized with staff and pattern of distribution.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of the court towards Page-299 of the petition, which is the MoU and submits that the effective date, duration and termination of the MoU is governed by S.8.1. which shall be valid w.e.f. 1 st January, 2016 or the date of signing of MoU as the case may be and shall remain in force for the period of ten years with a provision to extend for another five years.
5. By way of referring the Management council Arrangement, which is Clause-65 of Memorandum of Association Rules and Regulations and Bye-Laws (Page-90 of the petition), he submits that how the management council has to be formed that has been disclosed therein. He submits that the petitioner happened to be the Director, the Members prescribed at (ii) to (vi) were required to be nominated by the Director General, CSIR. He further submits that the petitioner -2- [2025:JHHC:34512] happened to be the only Director of National Laboratory and functions as a Chairman. He then submits that the decision was taken on 12.3.2021 to disburse the honorarium in favour of the beneficiaries, who participated in one or the other projects. He then submits that in light of the decision, on 25.03.2021, the disbursement of the honorarium has been made to all the beneficiaries and staffs. According to him, the Management Council consists of seven persons, however, the FIR has been registered against two persons i.e. petitioner and one Ashok Kumar Singh. By way of referring Clause-67 of the Memorandum of Association Rules and Regulations and Bye-Laws he submits that the proceedings of the Management Council shall be approved by its Chairman and the Director General as its Principal Executive Officer is having the power to review / amend any of the decisions of the Management Council. He submits that the said Clause- 67 has not been modified and in view of that the petitioner has acted Bonafide and honorarium has been paid to all the beneficiaries and staffs. He further submits that the letter dated 26.03.2021, as contained in Annexure-5 of the petition, by which, the direction has been made to stop the honorarium, is of later dated, whereas the honorarium has been released on 25.03.2021. He next submits that the petitioner has been directed to deposit the amount by the letter dated 12.04.2021, which is contained in Annexure-8 of the petition and by way of referring the said document, he submits that the gross amount is Rs. 21611000.00, the TDS is Rs. 10858771.00 and the net amount paid to the petitioner is Rs. 10752229.00. He then submits that the said amount of Rs. 10752229.00 has already been deposited by the petitioner and the Bank Challan has been brought on record by way of Annexure-9 to the -3- [2025:JHHC:34512] petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the FIR has been registered on 25.06.2023 for the alleged misappropriation of the year 2021. He submits that ceiling of honorarium has been lifted by Chapter-8.1. He then submits that the account of the petitioner, his wife and his children were seized by the CBI, however, on the application filed by the petitioner before the learned court and the learned court has been pleased to de-freeze the account with the condition that the amount involved shall be kept in the account and that will not be allowed to be withdrawn and no transaction can be made. In these backgrounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Versus State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1. Relying on the said judgment, he submits that the said decision is of the Five Judges Bench, wherein it has been observed that if the prayer for bail is being considered by the court, the court has to look into the several circumstances as to whether the petitioner is at flying risk or he was involved in another case or there is possibility of involving him in any other case on his release and to look into the nature and gravity of offences and that has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment. He further refers to the said judgment and submits that the arrest should be the last option. On these backgrounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioner and further the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation.
8. Per contra, Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, learned counsel -4- [2025:JHHC:34512] appearing for the CBI has opposed the prayer and draws the attention of the court to the contents of the FIR and submits that it has been alleged that a meeting was held on 28.10.2015 at New Delhi under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Minister of State (I/c) for Coal, Power and NRE in the presence of representatives of Coal consuming Power Sector and Coal Producing bodies, wherein CSIR-CIMFR was appointed as Third Party Sampling Agency on behalf of Power Utility and Coal companies and was responsible for the work of sampling and analysis of coal. He submits that allegations are there that 304 coal sampling projects were created by CSIR-CIMFR by combining several agreements into one project and further several projects were created from one specific agreement by curtailing its tenure from 10 years and specifying the quantity of coal to be sampled in the project to facilitate the distribution of intellectual fee. He next submits that the petitioner happened to be the then Director, Chief Scientist/HORG, thereby conspired with unknown others with intention to share the intellectual fee by violating para-8.1.1 of CSIR Guidelines. He then submits that total honorarium / intellectual fee / project fee amounting to Rs.1,39,79,97,871/- approx has been distributed in coal sampling Scientists/Technical projects since 2016 Officers/Administrative Staff/other staff of CIMFR, in violation of para 8.1.3 & 8.11 of the CSIR Guidelines for Technology Transfer and Utilization of Knowledgebase, 2005 & 2017. He submits that the allegation is there against the petitioner of receiving intellectual fee of Rs. 15,36,72,000/- (approx) through 304 Coal Sampling Projects in violation of the CSIR Guidelines for Technology Transfer and Knowledgebase, 2005 and 2017.
-5-
[2025:JHHC:34512]
9. Learned counsel further submits that in light of Clause- 8.2.12, at least limitation period with regard to any complaint is required to be maintained, however, decision was taken on 22.03.2021 and just after three days without waiting for 30 days period prescribed in Clause-8.2.12, the honorarium has been disbursed.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI draws the attention of the court to the counter affidavit filed by the CBI and submits that from the investigation, it reveals that the Management Council (MC) during 32nd meeting held on 22.03.2021 at CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad recommended distribution of honorarium to officials (beneficiaries) of CIMFR approved by the petitioner, however, the honorarium was paid on 25.03.2021 contrary to the requisite period of thirty (30) days as per para 8.1.4(0) of CSIR Technology Transfer Guidelines, 2017. He next submits that the restriction to distribute the honorarium was made on 26.03.2021, however, on 25.03.2021, the disbursement of the honorarium has been made to all the beneficiaries and staffs and in that view of the matter, the petitioner is required to make out the parameters of in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. Versus State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 2024 INSC 202, where in para-24, the Hon'ble Supreme court has held as follows:-
"24. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on the -6- [2025:JHHC:34512] facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the Court to grant pre- arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously, defying orders and keep absconding is not entitled to such grant."
11. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI also submits that the case of Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. (Supra) is distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as that case is not arising out of Prevention of Corruption Act and so far as economic offence is concerned, that has also been considered in the said case and it was held that the economic offence need a different approach.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI also relied in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal Versus State of Punjab, reported in (2025) 4 SCC 493 and he refers to paras-21, 24, 30 and 35. Relying on this judgment, he submits that the principle, governing grant of anticipatory bail are distinct and different from the principles as regards the grant of regular bail. On these grounds, he submits that -7- [2025:JHHC:34512] anticipatory bail of the petitioner may kindly be rejected.
13. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the court has gone through the materials available on record including the relevant documents, annexures brought on record by way of filing counter affidavit and supplementary affidavit. The dispute in the present case is with regard to honorarium release / paid to the beneficiaries and the staffs of CSIR-CIMFR and allegations are made that decision has been taken on 12.03.2021 to release the honorarium and on 25.03.2021, the honorarium has been released. The document brought on record as Annexure-5 is dated 26.03.2021, by which, the honorarium was directed to be stopped till further orders, but this decision is of 26.03.2021, however the decision to pay the honorarium has already been taken on 12.03.2021 and honorarium has also been paid on 25.03.2021. The said release was pursuant to the approval of the Standing committee and thereafter the Managing Committee has accorded the approval and thereafter the amount was disbursed on 25.03.2025 to the beneficiaries and staffs.
14. The document contained in Annexure-8, which is dated 12.04.2021, whereby the CSIR-CIMFR has directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs. 21611000.00 and in the said document itself it has been disclosed that the income tax deducted as Rs. 10858771.00 and the amount paid to the petitioner was also mentioned therein as Rs. 10752229.00 and pursuant to that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs. 10752229.00, which is contained in Annexure-9 of the petition, which is the copy of the Bank challan of depositing the said amount in the account of CSIR-CIMFR.
15. There is no doubt that in the economic offence, the -8- [2025:JHHC:34512] seriousness and gravity of the allegation are required to be considered by the court and if that is there, the courts are very slow in granting the anticipatory bail. Admittedly, the petitioner has already retired now and there is no chance that the petitioner is going to do any mischief like that. The procedures are prescribed in the guidelines and bye laws, the caption of honorarium has been removed with effect from 01.06.2005 and that has come in chapter-8.1.4(s), prima facie it appears that the petitioner has co-operated in the investigation and the direction issued by the CSIR-CIMFR has also been followed by the petitioner and he has already retired now and in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to provide the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
16. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is hereby directed to surrender before the learned court within three weeks from today, and in the event of her surrender/arrest, the petitioner, above named, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned ADJ-III-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad in connection with CBI/SPE/ACB Dhanbad FIR No. RC 4(A)/2023D, subject to the condition that the petitioner will deposit his Passport before the learned court and he will not leave the country without permission of the learned court and further he will co-operate in the investigation as also subject to the conditions laid down under section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-19.11.2025 Amitesh/-
-9-