The Jharkhand High Court in Ranchi, the courtroom saw a familiar matter return to the board. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad was dealing with a plea filed by Sourav Bardhan, accused in an Enforcement Directorate (ED) case, seeking more time to surrender after missing an earlier deadline fixed by the court. The matter, though procedural on paper, carried real consequences for the progress of the trial.
Background
The case traces back to an order passed on 7 February 2025, when the High Court had granted Bardhan protection with a clear condition. He was required to surrender before the trial court within two weeks and furnish bail bonds, in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tarsem Lal vs Directorate of Enforcement.
However, things did not move as planned. Bardhan later approached the High Court claiming that when he attempted to surrender, his bail bonds were not accepted, and eventually, the two-week window expired. When the matter first came up earlier this month, the court was not convinced, noting that no document or application had been placed on record to support this claim. The bench had then granted time for a supplementary affidavit.
That affidavit was filed before the hearing on 20 December. Significantly, Bardhan withdrew an earlier statement made in his main petition and instead took the stand that by the time he reached the lower court to surrender, the deadline had already lapsed.
Court’s Observations
Justice Prasad carefully walked through the timeline. The order of 7 February was unambiguous surrender had to happen within two weeks from receiving the copy. The petitioner’s explanation was that he was unaware of the exact time frame and realised the lapse only later, prompting him to seek modification of the order.
The ED, represented by counsel Amit Kumar Das, opposed any leniency. He submitted that the trial was effectively stalled because of Bardhan’s non-appearance. Pointing to the petitioner’s conduct, the ED argued that there was no serious effort to surrender within time, nor was there any urgency shown after filing the present petition in March.
The bench noted these submissions but also reminded itself of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal, which emphasises a balance between securing an accused’s presence and avoiding unnecessary custody when conditions can serve the purpose.
“One opportunity is to be given to the petitioner to surrender,” the court observed, making it clear that this was not an open-ended indulgence.
Decision
In its final order, the High Court modified the earlier direction of 7 February 2025 to a limited extent. Bardhan has now been directed to surrender before the concerned court on 22 December 2025, along with an appropriate application for consideration of his bail bonds.
At the same time, the bench struck a firm note of caution. Taking into account the petitioner’s past conduct, the court warned that if he fails to surrender on the given date, the trial court would be free to take “all possible measures” under law to secure his appearance.
With these observations, the criminal miscellaneous petition was disposed of.
Case Title: Sourav Bardhan vs The Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement
Case Number: Cr.M.P. No. 939 of 2025
Date of Order: 20 December 2025
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Prabhas Chandra Jha, Advocate
Counsel for Respondent (ED): Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Mr. Manmohit Bhalla, Advocate
