2026:JHHC:14680 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1117 of 2026 ------ 1. Rajnish Kumar Singh @ Rajnish Kumar @ Rintu Singh, aged about 46 years, son of Tripurari Singh, resident of Village Pagar (Uddih), P.O. Loharsi, P.S. Pipratand, District Palamau, Jharkhand 2. Kalyani Kumari @ Kalyani Devi, aged about 32 years, wife of Harmendra Kumar Singh, resident of Village Chankar Kasturi, P.O. Poldih, Jagdishpur, P.S. Hussainabad, District Palamau, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 2005 of 2026 ------ Rupanjali Devi, aged about 35 years, wife of Rajnish Kumar Singh, resident of Village Pagar (Uddih), P.O. Loharsi, P.S. Pipratand, District Palamau, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Govind Ray Karan, Advocate Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate (In all cases) For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. (In A.B.A. No.1117 of 2026) Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P. (In A.B.A. No.2005 of 2026) For the Informant : Mr. Prashant Kumar Rahul, Advocate ------ 02/13.05.2026 Both the cases are arising out of same FIR and in view of that these cases have been heard together. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 3. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No. 533 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 120B and 506 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj. 2026:JHHC:14680 2 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in A.B.A. No.1117 of 2026 submits that the informant is the cousin sister of petitioner no.1. He submits that not a single penny has been credited in the Account of the petitioner. He also submits that petitioner no.1 does not have any business transaction either with the informant or with her relative. He next submits that the informant has alleged the amount transfer in the Account of different persons. According to him, false allegation is made of fraudulently taking a sum of Rs.1,37,78,000/-. He further submits that in the calculation chart amount decreased to the tune of Rs.1,02,00,080/-. He submits that the petitioners have not misappropriated any amount and in view of that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 5. Learned counsel submits that so far petitioner- Rupanjali Devi in A.B.A. No.2005 of 2026 is concerned, she has already been prosecuted in different case arising out of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act lodged by the informant and suppressing that fact, the present case has been lodged. He submits that false allegation has been made in the present case against the petitioner of defraud of Rs.1,37,78,000/-. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to this petitioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State in respective cases and learned counsel appearing for the informant jointly oppose the prayer and submit that the complicity of all these petitioners are very much there as it has come in the case diary in the subsequent investigation. He submits that all of them in connivance with each other, have taken amount of the different persons on different requests and some time they have requested the goldsmith to provide amount and that has come in paragraphs 19, 22, 23 and 26 of the case diary. He also submits that petitioner- Rajnish Kumar Singh is also having criminal antecedent. 7. Learned counsel for the informant further added that the petitioners are indulged in fraudulently taking the amount to the tune of Rs.1,37,78,000/-. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 8. Considering that the allegations are that the petitioners after developing close relationship with the informant and her husband, took 2026:JHHC:14680 3 monetary help of Rs.1,37,78,000/- from the informant and her relatives on the pretext of monetary loss and sharing of future profits and when the informant demanded money, she was threatened with dire consequences. The Account Number of the informant is the subject matter and transaction detail is part of the case diary. In the case diary, it has come that transaction has been done in the Account of petitioner-Rupanjali Devi. In para 1 of the case diary, it has come that large number of entries in the Account of Aastha online as well as cash transaction with the petitioner and the co-accused. From the statement of owner of Aastha online- Upendra Mehta at page 19, it has come that he is running a Customer Service Point and the petitioner- Rupanjali Devi took photo copy of its QR code and started taking money in her online Account and used to collect and sometime get it transferred in some other Account. In the FIR itself, how and which date the amount has been transferred and credited is disclosed therein. The allegations are there of cheating and fraud after developing close relationship with the victim. In the attending facts and circumstances, I not am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioners is hereby, rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Anit Uploaded 15.05.2026