( 2025:JHHC:30903 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 4385 of 2025 Laxman Jee Yadav, aged about 38 years, son of late Bachha Jee Yadav, resident of Durga Mandap Road, Hari Narayan Nagar, Barmasia, P.O. and P.S. Dhansar, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand ...... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate Mr. Aman Kumar Dayal, Advocate 08/ 07.10.2025: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 306/2019, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1349 of 2022, registered under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 120(B)/34 of the I.P.C., pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that false allegation has been made against the petitioner and main allegation is against Suresh Dutt Tiwary, Asha Devi, Bishwesh Dutt Tiwary and Sidharth Kumar. He further submits that false allegation has been made of defalcation of Rs. forty seven lakh and eight thousand, however, against the petitioner only Rs. 1,48,500/- is alleged to be defalcated. According to him nothing has been withdrawn by the petitioner and connivance has been wrongly alleged in the F.I.R. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that in para 156 of the case diary it has come that one cheque has been ( 2025:JHHC:30903 ) issued in the name of Suman Chatterjee but it has come in the investigation that no cheque has been received by Suman Chatterjee. He further submits that anticipatory bail applications of the co-accused persons have been rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in A.B.A. No. 6462 of 2020 and A.B.A. No. 3781 of 2021. 5. Learned counsel for the informant submits that allegation of defalcation is there and the petitioner in connivance with other accused persons defalcated Rs. 1,48,500/- at the time of posting. 6. In view of above and looking into contents of F.I.R, it transpires that allegation is there against the petitioner of defalcation of Rs. 1,48,500/- however, the entire defalcation amount is of Rs. forty seven lakh and eight thousand and even if the main accused are said to be so far others, the complicity of the petitioner in the said defalcation cannot be ruled out. The anticipatory bail applications of the co-accused persons have already been rejected. 7. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer of anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Dt.07.10.2025 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-