( 2026:JHHC:13162 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3696 of 2026 ------ Rajat Kumar Mishra, aged about 32 years, son of Mohan Kumar Mishra, resident of Village –Prasadi Tola, Malikpur, P.O. –Chakauti, P.S. –Jale, District –Darbhanga, Bihar. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kr. Karmakar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 04.05.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No.53 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being an agent of the bank which financed Rs.24,44,000/- for purchase of truck to the informant used to collect the interest amount of Rs.66,000/- per month but has misappropriated a total sum of Rs.3,21,000/- by not depositing the same in the branch of the concerned bank and in connivance with the branch manager of the concerned bank, he used to give false message on the mobile phone of the informant that all amount has been deposited and because of the default of payment of the interest, the bank seized the vehicle of the informant and auction sold the same. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that the petitioner was Collection Executive Employee of the concerned bank from 10.11.2016 to 16.02.2022 and was relieved from his services with the said bank on 16.02.2022 and as per the communication made on 20.07.2022, there is no demand from the bank due against the petitioner and in this respect the learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to annexure-2 and 2/1. It is further submitted that the notice of demand letter was sent from the bank concerned through its advocate, intimating the informant that the informant has defaulted in making payment of EMI. It is next submitted that the auction sell was made after compliance of all the relevant requirement of intimation to the petitioner, including the pre-selling notice and intimation of initiation of sales proceedings of 04.09.2021. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not received Rs.3,21,000/- from the informant as claimed by the informant. It is then submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in para –14 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 16.02.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 16 of the bail application. It is then submitted that the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the informant or the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the above-named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No.53 of 2022 with the condition that the petitioner will co-operate with the trial of the case and will furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case, with further condition that he will not annoy or disturb the informant or the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 04.05.2026 Sonu/