BIRENDER KUMAR ALIAS BIRENDRA MUSHAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
A.B.A./2505/2025 · 2025-04-24
Sri Ananda Sen
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 11017 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 11017 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:12136 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 2505 of 2025
----- Birender Kumar @ Birendra Mushar, S/o Ramlal Bhuiyan, R/o Vill Mandu, P.O. + P.S.- Mandu, District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand
.... Petitioner(s).
Versus The State of Jharkhand
… Opp. Party(s).
------
CORAM :
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Aayush Avant Srivastava, Advocate
Ms. Arpita Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Devesh Krishna, AC to S.C. (Mines)-III
…......
03/ 24.04.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
This is an application filed by the petitioners praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of Sections 482 and 484 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 apprehending his arrest for the offences under Sections 316(5/ 318(4)/ 338/336(3)/340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is his case that he is not even the employee of Mandu Block nor he is named in the F.I.R. He has been implicated on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
An F.I.R. was lodged for forging signature of the informant. From Mandu Block huge amount of sum was withdrawn from time to time and was misappropriated.
During course of investigation, which is apparent from the impugned order, the name of this petitioner transpired and that he was also involved in this occurrence. It had come during investigation, which is apparent from the impugned order that this petitioner and others associates used to withdraw money from the MP fund through cheques from Bank of India, Mandu Branch by forging the signature of the BDO.
2025:JHHC:12136
Considering the material, I find that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as the same needs interrogation of the petitioner and detail investigation. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner in connection with Mandu P.S. Case No.228 of 2024, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh, stands rejected.
(ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./