2025:JHHC:13833 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2607 of 2025 ----- Srilal Hansda, aged about-41 years Son of Ramsai Hansda, Resident of Village-Goradih, Barmasiya, P.O. & P.S. Barhet, District-Sahibganj. …. Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. …...... 03/ 07.05.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The present anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for the offences registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of Indian Penal Code presently pending in the Learned Court of S.D.J.M, Sahibganj in connection with Barhait Police Station Case No. 67 of 2024. 3. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are that the petitioner being a Mukhiya (village head), and a contractor misused government funds meant for building toilets in the 2022–23 financial year. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the state has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person with no criminal history. He further submits that there is no specific allegation in the FIR showing how they are involved in the case. He further submits that the petitioner was only a coordinator. He further submits that the petitioner responded to a notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., but did not receive a receipt from the Investigating Officer. 6. From the perusal of the case diary it has come during the course of investigation that few witnesses have stated that the fund was issued for building toilets but the same was not utilized and misappropriated. There is involvement of the petitioner in misappropriation. Also, from the case diary it can be seen that in reply to the notice under Section 41-A of Code of Criminal Procedure that the signature of co-accused was taken but the signature of the petitioner is not there. This fact suggest that he is not co- operating with the investigation. In view of the aforesaid fact, I am not inclined to grant this petitioner the privilege of Anticipatory Bail. 7. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./