Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10487 (JHR)

MRITUNJAY CHOUDHARY v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./2410/2025 · 2025-04-21

Sri Ananda Sen

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:11904 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.2410 of 2025 ------ Mritunjay Choudhary, son of Madan Choudhary, resident of Village Chhota Asna, P.O. & P.S. Fatehpur, District Jamtara. ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. ... ... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A.P.P. ----- 04/ 21.04.2025 This Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Fatehpur P.S. Case No.6 of 2025, for offences under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 318(4), 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara. 2. Heard the parties at length. 3. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the anticipatory bail application. 4. The petitioner is a village level entrepreneur. He received Rs.70,000/- in his seven different personal Bank Accounts which were meant to be disbursed under “Mukhyamantri Maiya Samman Yojana”. Though the petitioner submits that he has refunded the money, it has come in investigation that the amount was refunded only in the month of January, 2025, and the amount was transferred in the account of this petitioner from September onwards. 2025:JHHC:11904 2 5. From the impugned order, I find that there is a reference of case diary which suggests that the petitioner received the amount which was supposed to be disbursed to 46 beneficiaries of Banarancha Panchayat and 61 beneficiaries of Fatehpur Panchayat, which the petitioner has misappropriated and later on refunded. The petitioner is a Village Level Entrepreneur who was working under the BDO. This suggests that in some official capacity, he was working and he is not a layman. 6. Thus, considering the misappropriation, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed. 8. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court below. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant. Cp-3