[2026:JHHC:3093] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6794 of 2025 Sonu Rawani @ Sonu Kumar Rawani aged about 18 years, son of Bablu Rawani, resident of Manjhli Patra, Kurumba, Chandnabad, P.O. & P.S. Dugdha, District Bokaro. ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Praful Jojo, A.P.P. ------ 04/ 05.02.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dugdha P.S. Case No. 46 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 317(5), 338 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner is having no criminal antecedent. He next submits that the stolen motorcycles have not been recovered from the possession of this petitioner. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner happened to be the accomplish of the apprehended co-accused and they have taken the name of this petitioner. He next submits that in paras-81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 89, 90 and 91 of the case diary, it has been disclosed that the owners of the seized motorcycles are said to be registered owners of different districts. On these grounds, he submits that the anticipatory bail may [2026:JHHC:3093] -2- not be granted to the petitioner. 5. It appears that the name of the petitioner has been taken by the apprehended co-accused and on whose information, the motorcycles have been seized and further in paras-81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 89, 90 and 91 of the case diary, it has come that the recovered motorcycles have been registered in the name of different persons of different districts, which prima facie suggests that the petitioner’s involvement is also there, being an accomplish of the co-accused. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to provide the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, above named. As such, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-05.02.2026 Amitesh/-