[ 2026:JHHC:13667] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2170 of 2026 Babloo Das aged about 40 years S/o Kanchan Das, resident of village Badajudi P.O Badajudi, P.S Ghatsila, District East Singhbhum. ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Ganjhu, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate. ------ 03/ 07.05.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chakulia P.S. Case No. 82 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happened to be the Field Agent of the company namely Bharat Finance Inclusion Ltd., Ghatshila Branch and it has been alleged against the petitioner that he has collected the money from the loan holders / consumers to the tune of Rs. 27,24,199/-, but the same has not been deposited in their accounts. He next submits that the petitioner was working there and belatedly the present FIR has been lodged by the Branch Manager of the said company. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioner. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner has collected the amount from different consumers, but the same has not been deposited in the [ 2026:JHHC:13667] -2- account of the said company. 5. The branch manager of the aforementioned company has lodged the present FIR, alleging that being the Field Agent, the petitioner has collected Rs. 27,24,199/- from different loan holders and did not deposit the same in their accounts. Further the petitioner has not only cheated the company, but also, he has cheated the consumers, who have taken the loan from the said company. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-07.05.2026 Amitesh/-