( 2025:JHHC:31356 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3529 of 2025 ------ Amjad Hussain @ Md. Amjad Hussain, aged about 37 years, son of late Sattar Ali, resident of Government Quarters of Department of Health, Near DC Office, P.O.-Ramgarh, P.S.- Ramgarh, Dist.-Ramgarh (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Anand No.2, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.06 Dated- 10.10.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.254 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 318(4)/ 316(5)/ 338/ 336(3)/ 336(4)/340(2)/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner while deputed as Assistant of District Account Management Unit of NHM Ramgarh has embezzled Rs.90,26,840/- from the account of the concerned doctors and transferred the amount payable to the doctors to other accounts. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner is not authorized to handle the account and revenue of the department concerned. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 28.08.2024, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 10 of the bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of being in dominion of the property of the State in capacity of the public servant has committed criminal breach of trust of huge amount of money for which the punishment is imprisonment for life, so, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and also tampering with evidence, if released on bail, in view of the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and overwhelming materials in the record to establish his involvement in the said offence. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of embezzling government money to the tune of Rs.90,26,840/- and the chance of the petitioner absconding and also tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected at this stage. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 10.10.2025 Sonu/Gunjan-