2025:JHHC:17580 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.2772 of 2025 ------ Sarita Verginia Tirkey @ Sarita V. Tirkey, wife of Amjad Hussain @ Md. Amjad Hussain, resident of Government Quarters of Department of Health, near DC Office, PO Ramgarh, PS Ramgarh, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand … … Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Niraj Kr. Mishra, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, A.P.P. ----- 06/ 02.07.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending her arrest for offences registered under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 338, 336(3), 336(4), 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the court of Learned CJM, Ramgarh in connection with Ramgarh PS Case No. 254 of 2024. 3. It is alleged that the government money was being misappropriated by the petitioner, her husband and other accused persons. 4. As per the FIR the money which was supposed to be paid to the doctors were transferred and syphoned in the account of other persons including the petitioner. It is alleged that it came to the knowledge that the salary of Sarita Kumari, Dr. Rahul Kumar, Dr. Sangita Baraik and Dr. Bina Kumari, Dr. T. Chakravorty were given from Ramgarh Hospital. Out of which the amount of doctors namely, Dr. Rahul Kumar, Dr. Sangita Baraik, Dr. Bina Kumari and Dr. T. Chakravorty were found to be transferred in the account of Md. Amjad Hussain whereas the amount of Sarita Kumari was transferred in the account of this petitioner who is Sarita Verginia Tirkey. It has also come to the notice that it is the husband of this petitioner who has 2025:JHHC:17580 2 taken active part in this misappropriation and got the amounts transferred. 5. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 6. Considering the nature of allegation, this Court finds it not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner as the same needs proper investigation. 7. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/Cp-3