( 2026:JHHC:3240 ) --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6866 of 2025 ---- Madhulika Sahay, aged about 31 years, daughter of Sri Rai Madhurendra Sahay and wife of Sri Jai Prakash, Presently resident of 304, Hope Aparna, Road No.1, Indirapuri, Beside Ashiyana Road, Patna, B.V., College, P.O. & P.S.-Ashiyana, District-Patna (Bihar) and earlier resident of village-Choutand, P.O.-Baidhmara, P.S.-Horla, District-Bokaro .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate ---- 02/05.02.2026 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 Sector-6 P.S. Case No.19 of 2024, for the alleged offences registered under Section 316(2), 336(3), 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner was posted as a Relationship Manager in the Axis Bank, at Bokaro and the allegations are made of fraudulently transfer the amount from the account of one Tarni Devi. He further submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the said transaction and the said act has been done by her husband, namely, Mr. Jay Prakash ( 2026:JHHC:3240 ) --2-- along with one Mantosh. He submits the petitioner is the victim of the circumstance and she has nothing to do with the said fraudulent transaction made by her husband, namely, Mr. Jay Prakash. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner was also connive with her husband, that is, prima facie clear in light of the statement of one Aman Kumar in paragraph-84 of the case diary and the said Aman Kumar is also one of the accused. He submits that for the period of said transaction, the mobile location of this petitioner was found to be near the house of the victim that has come in paragraph-96 of the case diary. He further submits that the involvement of the petitioner in such fraudulent transfer cannot be denied. 5. In Paragraph-82 of the case diary, the statement of Aman Kumar is recorded, who is also one of the accused and he has stated that this petitioner has taken Aman Kumar to the house of Tarni Devi several times. Aman Kumar used to wait for the petitioner outside of the house of Tarni Devi and petitioner used to go inside and that has happened for three-four times. The petitioner has handed over the ATM Card of Tarni Devi to Aman Kumar and asked him to take out money and all time Aman Kumar has withdrawn the money and handed over to this petitioner. He has also stated that this petitioner used to take the mobile of Tarni Devi and was doing something with the said mobile and thereafter used ( 2026:JHHC:3240 ) --3-- to hand over the same mobile to Tarni Devi. When Tarni Devi has lodged the case, husband of this petitioner has approached Aman Kumar and requested him not to disclosed anything to the police with respect to the visiting house of Tarni Devi and subsequently, this petitioner has also requested Aman Kumar not to say anything about visiting the house of Tarni Devi. 6. In Paragraph-96 of the case diary, mobile location of this petitioner was found to be near the house of Tarni Devi and from the account of Tarni Devi, the amount has been syphoned away. 7. Prima facie involvement of this petitioner, cannot be ruled out. I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 05.02.2026 Nandini/ Uploaded on-10.02.2026