Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. 2043 of 2018 Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Kumar Singh @ Arbind Kumar Singh, aged about 44 years, Son of Bharat Prasad Singh, resident of Village- Sadhiya, P.O. & P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District- Siwan (Bihar), presently, Resident of 57, Tisco Society AIADA Adityapur, P.O. & P.S.- Adityapur, District- Saraikella Kharsawan, Jharkhand. ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Arjun Singh Das, Son of Late Biranchi Das, resident of Village- Kudahatu (Simjang), P.O.- Jhinkpani, P.S.- Jhinkpani, District- West Singhbhum, Jharkhand, PIN-833215. ….. Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. --------- Order No. 06/Dated: 22th January, 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. This petition has been filed with prayer for an appropriate order directing the informant to refund the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the petitioner, which was earlier deposited by the petitioner in the learned Court of J.M. 1st Class, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa without prejudice to his defence as per the direction of Honb’le Jharkhand High Court while granting regular bail to the petitioner vide order dated 21.05.2015 in B.A. No. 2490 of 2015 in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 70 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. No. 421 of 2007 (s) and not withdrawn by the informant. Page | 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that informant-O.P. No.2 has died. There is no impugned order although, it is oral submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of granting regular bail to the petitioner, he has deposited the Rs.1,00,000/- without prejudice to the defence of the petitioner and now case has been disposed of and the petitioner has been acquitted from the charges, but no release order for the amount deposited by him has been passed by the concerned trial court. The petitioner is entitled for release of the amount, which was deposited by the petitioner. 4. Learned APP has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that petitioner has not taken any recourse before the concerned trial court. Therefore, he has to take remedy at the first instance before the concerned trial court. Therefore, this application is not maintainable. 5. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, I find that the petitioner has not agitated the matter before the concerned trial court and directly filed an application for release of the amount which is not maintainable at this stage. 6. Therefore, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed as not maintainable. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Simran-Sunil/