2025:JHHC:34718 --1-- A.B.A. No. 5449 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5449 of 2025 ---- Amarjeet Singh, aged about 35 years, son of Tejnarayan Singh, resident of Gayatri Nagar, Sector – 2, HEC Colony, PO – Karma, PS-Dhurwa, District - Ranchi .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Advocate ---- 03/20.11.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Kanke P.S. Case No.128 of 2025 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner was working till March, 2024 in the alleged shop and thereafter one Jai Kumar Singh has taken in- charge of the said shop. He then submits that the allegations are made that for the period of 01.07.2023 to 15.01.2025 Rs.41,00,412/- have not been deposited with the Government. He next submits that the petitioner was not working at the relevant 2025:JHHC:34718 --2-- A.B.A. No. 5449 of 2025 time and in view of that the petitioner may kindly be granted anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that till March, 2024 the petitioner was working and audit report is with effect from 01.07.2023 to 15.01.2025 and in view of that the anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. The Audit report suggests that with effect from 01.07.2023 to 15.01.2025 the difference between the said deposit was found to Rs. 41,00,412/- and the petitioner was working there till March, 2024 and the said misappropriation was already alleged to be there with effect from 01.07.2023. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 20.11.2025 Sangam/