2026:JHHC:12266 -1- A.B.A. No.6381 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- A.B.A. No. 6381 of 2025 ---- Mo Zeeshan @ Md. Zeesan Malik @ Md. Jishan Mallik @ Md. Zeesan son of Mo Moktar @ Md. Moktar @ Mokhtar Miyan, aged about 22 years, resident of Village Jolah, Tetaria, PO Koura, PS Pratappur, District -Chatra, PIN 825 404, .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- none For the State :- Mr. P.D. Agarwal, Advocate ---- 2/27.04.2026 On repeated call, nobody has responded on behalf of the petitioner, however, the learned counsel for the respondent State is present. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Pratappur PS Case No.0011 of 2024, for offence registered under section 406, 420, 409 of the IPC, pending in court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatra. 3. In this petition it has been stated that the petitioner has not committed any offence and the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case. It is also stated in the petition that false allegations are made against the petitioner of loss to the tune of Rs.63,72,035/- with regard to paddy 4. Learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that allegations are there of misappropriating huge quantity of paddy and 2026:JHHC:12266 -2- A.B.A. No.6381 of 2025 the petitioner alone is responsible for such misappropriation of paddy to the tune of Rs.63,72,035/- as well as to the tune of Rs.19,64,925/- relating to one Md. Ajmatullah. He next submits that in paragraph 75 of the case diary it has come that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent and in paragraph no.102 of the case diary it has also come that in spite of issuance of twice notice under section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has not appeared and thereafter the warrant of arrest has been issued. 5. In the FIR the allegations are made of misappropriating the paddy to the tune of Rs.63,72,035/- against the petitioner and as it has been submitted that in paragraph 75 of the case diary it has come that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent and in paragraph no.102 of the case diary it has also come that in spite of issuance of notice twice under section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has not appeared and thereafter the warrant of arrest has been issued, and in the attending facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected and consequently, this anticipatory bail application being A.B.A. No.6381 of 2025 is, hereby, dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 27.04.2026 SI/