2026:JHHC:14471 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- A.B.A. No. 722 of 2026 ---- Md. Jamir @ Jamir, aged about 49 years, son of Badshah Munshi, resident of New Market, PTPS, PO and PS Patratu, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Navin Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, Advocate ---- 2/12.05.2026 Heard learned counsels for petitioner and for State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Patratu (Bhurkunda) PS Case No.264 of 2025, for offence registered under section 126(2), 115 (2), 308(3), 140, 3(5) of BNS, 2023, pending in court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramgarh. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and false allegation is made against the petitioner of kidnapping and demanding Rs.3 lacs (three lacs). He next submits that even other cases lodged against the petitioner are arising out of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that allegations are there of kidnapping the informant and demanding 2026:JHHC:14471 2 Rs.3 lacs and on the assurance given by the informant to pay Rs.one lac, thereafter, the informant was released by the petitioner. He also submits that the witnesses have supported the case in paragraph nos.5,6,7 and 8 of the case diary. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. In the FIR, the allegation is made against the petitioner of kidnapping the informant and thereafter demanding Rs.3 lacs, and on assurance given by the informant that he will pay Rs.one lacs and, thereafter, the informant has been released by the petitioner and in the paragraph nos.5,6,7 and 8 of the case diary, the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and the petitioner is having criminal antecedent, and in the attending facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. As such, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected and, consequently, A.B.A. No.722 of 2026 is, hereby, dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 12.05.2026 SI/