Jaspreet Singh @ Jaspreet Singh Saroya vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Jaspreet Singh and Pradeep Anand Shetty, are authorized representatives of Masters Development Management (India) Private Limited. They are seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The informant alleges that the company was contracted to construct a center for Prakritik Chikitsa for Rs. 36 Crores, with a management fee of Rs. 68,16,000/-. The company allegedly failed to complete the work within the stipulated 16 months, overstayed for 12 months, and charged an excess amount of Rs. 93,79,000/- and Rs. 74,31,807/- despite not completing the project. The petitioners contend they have clean antecedents and have been falsely implicated. They also point out that similarly situated co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court.
Held
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The primary issue revolved around the entitlement to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations. The petitioners' submission regarding their clean antecedents and the grant of anticipatory bail to similarly situated co-accused by the Supreme Court weighed heavily. Crucially, the counsel for the informant indicated no opposition to the bail application. The Court found merit in granting the privilege of anticipatory bail. The reasoning appears to be based on the lack of opposition from the informant and the precedent set by the Supreme Court for co-accused, suggesting a prima facie case for bail. The operative direction is that the petitioners, upon arrest or surrender within four weeks, shall be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC/Section 482(2) of the BNS, 2023.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (or its equivalent under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) given the allegations of financial impropriety and non-completion of work in a construction project? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argue that they have clean antecedents and have been falsely implicated. They rely on the fact that similarly situated co-accused, Saikat Sen Gupta and others, have been granted anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court in SLP (Cr.) No. 3786 of 2026. They assure cooperation with the investigation if granted bail. Revenue/State's arguments: The State, through the learned A.P.P., is represented. The counsel for the informant, however, states that they have instructions not to oppose the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners.
Sections Cited
Section 438, Section 482
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 6 15-05-2026 Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, appearing for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
Petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 308(3), 161(2) of the B.N.S., 2023. 3. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that Tapovardhan Prakritik 2/4 Chikitsa Kendra is registered under the Society Registration Act where people come for Prakritik Chikitsa, further for expanding the Center, an agreement was entered in between the Director of the Center (informant) and Master Development Management Private Limited, a Mumbai based Project Management Company on 11.11.2021, for completing the construction of the Center, worth Rs. 36 Crores within a period of 16 months, further the fee payable to the management company was Rs. 68,16,000/- which was to be paid in 16 installments, but the company did not complete the work within the stipulated 16 months, rather the employees of the company overstayed for a period of 12 months without completing the work, further on 03.05.2022, the informant had complained to the Chairman of the company namely Jaspreet Singh (Petitioner) with regard to the pace of the work and he had assured that the work would be completed within the stipulated time, but the same was not done, rather the company saddled the informant with extra fee, which was objected, but the company instead of the agreed amount plus GST realised an amount of Rs. 93,79,000/- in excess, further alleges that the company realised an amount in excess of Rs. 74,31,807/- despite not completing the work,
hence alleges that the agreement entered in between the 3/4 informant and the company was nothing, but an illusion, as work was not completed within the stipulated time and money in excess was charged in connivance with the officials of the informant.
The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the instant case by the informant, it is further submitted that similarly situated, co-accused, Saikat Sen Gupta and others, have been already been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 06.04.2026 passed in S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 3786 of 2026, it is further submitted that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, the petitioners will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation.
At this stage, learned counsel for the informant submits that he has instruction not to oppose the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Let the petitioners, as named above, in the event of their arrest or surrender within four weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand)
4/4 each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, in connection with Barari P.S. Case No. 90 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. sanjeev/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.