IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 2441 of 2017 India Infoline Limited having its Regd. Office at 12A-10, 13th Floor, Parinee Crescenzo, C-38 & 39, G-Block bandra Kurla Complex, P.O and P.S. Bandra (East), Mumbai, 400 051, State Maharashtra, represented through its Territory Manager Bappaditya Neogi, son of Tusar Kanti Neogi, permanent resident of Badangri, P.O, P.S and District Hoogly, West Benga l--- --- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Niranjan Kumar, son of K.K. Sinha, resident of A-192, Sector-IV, HEC, Dhurwa, P.O and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi--- Opp. Parties --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath --- For the Petitioner: Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate For the O.P-State: Mr. Vijoy Kr. Gupta, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2: Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate --- 09 / 21.02.2025 Petitioner India Infoline Limited has prayed for setting aside the order dated 30.05.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in A.B.P. No. 836 of 2016, whereby and wherein, the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi was pleased to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the opposite party no. 2-Niranjan Kumar in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 85 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 1681 of 2016, registered under sections 406, 409, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid case was filed against the opposite party no. 2 for misappropriation of 33,28,747/-. The petitioner – M/s India Infoline Finance Limited was in the field of providing gold loan to the customers. At the relevant point of time, opposite party no. 2 was employed as a Branch Manager of the Company. It is further alleged that the opposite party no. 2 along with co-accused persons had replaced the ornaments which were mortgaged against the issuance of loan amount and misappropriated the original gold ornaments. 3. Learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi vide order dated 30.05.2017 released the opposite party no. 2 on anticipatory bail with the condition that he should deposit Rs. 5,50,000/- through a demand draft in favour of the petitioner at the time of furnishing of bail bonds. 2. 4. It was submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has deposited the aforesaid amount in the name of the petitioner. 5. It appears that the trial of the case is under progress. 6. Considering the entire gamut of this case, no case is made out for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party no. 2, at this stage. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Ambuj Nath, J) Ranjeet/ Uploaded