2025:JHHC:19633 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2322 of 2025 ---- Ajay Kumar Gupta, S/o Dhunmun Sah, resident of Vill.- Konmandra, P.O.- Chapri, P.S.-Bhawnathpur, Dist.- Garhwa, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---- WITH A.B.A. No. 2325 of 2025 ---- Premchand Kumar Prajapati, S/o Surendra Prajapati, resident of Vill.- Konmandra, P.O.-Chapri, P.S.- Bhawnathpur, Dist.- Garhwa, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---- For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashishtha, A.P.P. Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P. ---- 05 / 18.07.2025 These anticipatory bail applications under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, have been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with Nagar Untari P.S. Case No. 12 of 2025, registered for offences punishable under Sections 406/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case is presently pending before the Court of Learned A.C.J.M., Nagar Untari, Garhwa. 2. The case of prosecution as per informant Santosh Kumar, Station Master at Nagar Untari Railway Station is that Indian Railways and State Bank of India entered into MoU in which it was stated that the station’s earnings were to be deposited in the bank by an authorized agency, Writer Safe Guard Limited (WSG), through their agents called “Bikers”. The “Bikers” were responsible for carrying the station’s cash along with deposit slips and Treasury Remittance (T.R.) Notes to the bank, and then bringing back proof of deposit to the station and the Divisional Office in Dhanbad. Later, the Accounts Department in Hajipur found that Rs.16,10,409/- was missing at Barwadih Station. On checking Nagar Untari Station’s records for 2023, it was found that Rs.2,16,12,267/- was taken by two “Bikers” employee who were authorized by SBI. Although receipts were issued, the money was not deposited in the Railway’s SBI account. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent, they have committed no offence, and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that FIR is false, fabricated and 2025:JHHC:19633 -: 2 :- the petitioners have not embezzled any money. He contended that only vague and general accusations have been made. As per him, the FIR was filed on January 21, 2025 which is more than a year after the alleged incident and no reason for delay has been mentioned which raises doubt over the prosecution story. The money was deposited in the bank and the petitioners deposited the acknowledgment receipts to the station, which suggests that the money was deposited. He also submitted that the petitioners are having no criminal antecedent. As per the petitioner, there was a contract entered between the East Central Railway and State Bank of India and Clause 9 of the said agreement clearly provided that provisional acknowledgement should be kept at the Stations and same should be reconciled. As per them, the entire procedure, as envisaged in Clause 9 was followed, thus, these petitioners cannot be blamed. Petitioners also contended that neither any bank official nor any railway official has been made accused in this case. 4. Learned A.P.P appearing for the state opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the petitioners are not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail. He contended that the petitioners are named in the First Information Report. According to paragraph 20 of the case diary, both accused persons were missing since the date First Information Report was lodged and were having multiple railway fraud cases at different police stations. According to Paragraph 43 of case diary, cash deposits for the year 2023 sent by the station through “Bikers” were not deposited in the Railway Account No. 32595570076. More than Rs.2 crore collected by Nagar Untari Railway Station was not deposited by the “Bikers” and was misappropriated. 5. I have gone through the available records and the Case Diary. The allegation is that the amount collected from different Railway Stations were sent through these petitioners to State Bank of India for deposit. The amounts totaling to more than Rs.2 crore were not deposited and were misappropriated. The amount was collected from the Railway Stations, but does not reflect any deposit in the State Bank. It is also admitted that these petitioners were the “Bikers” who were transporting the money. Though the petitioners tried to put forth strongly that in the First Information Report, there is reference of acknowledgement slips, but the fact remains that the amounts were not deposited in the bank. The genuineness of acknowledgement slips also became doubtful. Further at paragraph 20 of the Case Diary, it has been mentioned that the petitioners are not present in the house after the First Information Report has been instituted. The living standard of the petitioners 2025:JHHC:19633 -: 3 :- also got elevated during this period when the misappropriation had taken place. Paragraph 29 of the case diary also suggests that the petitioners were not present at the place of occurrence when the police went to their house. Though, there is a delay in lodging the First Information Report, but, admittedly, these are government transactions, unless all the amounts are re- conciled, the fact and amount of misappropriation cannot be figured out. In paragraph 43 of the Case Diary, the Investigating Officer recorded that from the statement of accounts provided by the Bank and the statement maintained by the Railway officials at Nagar Untari Station, it is clear that the amount, which was taken by the petitioners and was supposed to be deposited in the bank, was not deposited. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find that this is a case which needs intensive investigation including custodial interrogation of the petitioners. There is misappropriation of government money and unless the same is investigated properly, actual facts and figures cannot be unearthed. In view of all these, I find that this is not a fit case to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The prayers for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioners are hereby rejected. 7. Both these anticipatory bail applications are dismissed. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03