2025:JHHC:23051 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6946 of 2025 --- Soloman Hembrom @ Solomon Hembram, s/o James Hembrom aged about 30 years Adhaar No. 6246 9223 3922 Resident of Shiv Pahar, Karharbill, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, Distt. Dumka, Jharkhand .....Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand --Opposite party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Petitioner : M/s. Rajendra Krishna, Amit Sinha, Advs. For the State : Md. Shahabuddin, A.P.P --- 02/08.08.2025 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned A.P.P. 2. The Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No. 37/2023, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Pakur, registered for the offence under Sections 408,409,467,468,471 and 34 of I.P.C 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that no any complaint /statement from the customer is enclosed with the Investigation Report. Moreover, 555 debit entries has been credited to 66 accounts spread over 32 branches and none have complained against the alleged illegal withdrawal. This itself indicates that all the transactions are genuine transaction. He further submits that the amount was not withdrawn in cash at the branch but was transferred to the respective accounts as mandated by the customers. It is not a case of withdrawal of money but it is transfer of money and the LTI verified by the petitioner were not a fake LTI as alleged in the FIR. The allegation has been drawn up on presumption only. Further, there is no any expert report attached therewith. Since the transfer transaction were made through double entry vouchers instead of using multi city cheque, as alleged, but the transfers were neither questioned by the account holder nor by the person whose accounts were credited. Although, such 2025:JHHC:23051 2 system of transfer transactions was approved by the senior authorities which was prevalent before the joining of the petitioner in the bank yet cannot be alleged as wrong system. Therefore, all the transactions were correctly made by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that even if the petitioner is released on bail, there is no chance of him to abscond and/or tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. He further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any terms and conditions and he is in custody since 15.04.2025; as such, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for bail of the Petitioner. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the above-named Petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of A.C.J.M., Pakur, in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No. 37/2023. It is made clear that the Petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the learned trial court and he shall not threaten any witness and shall co-operate in trial and if any adverse report will come against this Petitioner, learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of this Petitioner. (Deepak Roshan, J.) jk