Lagatar24 Desk
Ranchi: The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of Arun Kumar, CEO of NexGen Solutions Technology Pvt Ltd, in an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) case, holding that custodial interrogation is necessary. Senior Standing Counsel Sumit Gadodia appeared for the ACB.
Court Cites His Role as CEO and Contradictory Statements
The court said the petitioner is not a mere employee but the company’s CEO and custodian of its data and documents. The investigation also found that he accessed Binay Kumar Singh’s Gmail using his wife’s mobile number. Even during the interim order, he gave contradictory statements about work given to the Jharkhand Skill Development Mission Society. The court said that, given his position and conflicting statements, custodial interrogation is required and that the ACB’s counter-affidavit shows direct allegations against him. It refused anticipatory bail and directed that a copy of the order be sent by fax to the concerned trial court.
The Case
The petitioner feared arrest in ACB, Ranchi police station case no. 09/2025, registered under IPC Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 107 and 109 and Sections 7(c)/12 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. His counsel argued he was only an employee with no role in the alleged offence and had appeared before the ACB four times after the August 6, 2026 order. He cited the anticipatory bail granted on May 8, 2026 to co-accused Rajeev Jha alias Rajeev Kumar Jha, an accountant of the company whose director was Binay Kumar Singh, in which the court had found no material linking the accused to the crime.
ACB’s Main Arguments
The ACB said the two cases are not alike. Arun Kumar was CEO and custodian of all financial and non-financial records, and custodial interrogation is needed to find out what data was deleted from seized devices. When Binay Kumar Singh was absconding, Arun Kumar allegedly accessed his Gmail and WhatsApp using his wife’s number, which the Cyber police station, Ranchi, traced. A court-ordered search recovered a Vivo mobile from the same address, which he was using when present at the search. The ACB says this shows he was helping Singh abscond, and that he admitted deliberately not appearing despite notice. Despite four appearances, his statements were contradictory: he said his work was limited to workshops, yet replied to important company emails from Singh’s email. He denied knowing the amount received by the company for skill development work, though he had issued Sandeep Sharma an appointment letter to supervise it and was a signatory on company bills.
