The Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday declined to grant anticipatory bail to Ankit Ranjan, one of the accused in the long-running Windsor Hill township case, observing that the allegations point to a serious economic offence involving nearly ₹60 crore. The matter came up before Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke, and the courtroom mood stayed tense as both sides pressed hard on facts and figures.
Background
The case traces back to a 2017 FIR registered at Sirol police station on a complaint by Rajeev Shrivastava, Director of Esotech C.P. Infrastructure. According to the complaint, flats, villas and plots in the Windsor Hill project at Gwalior were sold, but the sale money allegedly never reached the company.
Ankit Ranjan moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking protection from arrest. His counsel argued that Ranjan was neither a director nor involved in managing the project and was being dragged in due to “vague and omnibus allegations.” The defence also pointed to a police enquiry report that reportedly found no evidence of embezzlement against him.
The State, however, painted a very different picture, claiming Ranjan was part of a wider conspiracy with key accused Manoj Shrivastava and others.
Court’s Observations
After going through the case diary and bank records, the court noted that large sums of money were routed through accounts linked to the applicant, far beyond his declared income. “The bench observed that the pattern of repeated deposits followed by immediate transfers cannot be treated as innocent at this stage,” a remark that drew quiet nods from the prosecution side.
The court also took note of allegations that flats were first sold at undervalued prices to relatives or shell firms and then quickly resold at higher rates, with the extra money allegedly diverted elsewhere. Justice Phadke remarked that such conduct, if proved, “goes beyond a simple civil dispute” and indicates planning and intent.
Importantly, the judge stressed that economic offences involving public money have a wider impact. In plain terms, the court felt that such cases shake public trust and therefore demand extra caution when bail is sought.
Decision
Holding that the investigation is still underway and several accused are yet to be traced, the High Court concluded that granting anticipatory bail at this stage could hamper a fair probe. The court found no merit in the argument that the dispute was purely civil and said the seriousness and scale of the alleged fraud required a cautious approach.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application filed by Ankit Ranjan was dismissed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Case Title: Ankit Ranjan vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Case No.: Misc. Criminal Case No. 54935 of 2025
Case Type: Anticipatory Bail Application (Economic Offence / Criminal)
Decision Date: 16 December 2025