(2026:JHHC:14464) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 4019 of 2026 Manoj Kumar Singh, aged about 36 years, son of Madan Singh, resident of village – Konauly, PO & PS - - Rajpur, District – Buxar, Bihar. … … …Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … …Opp. Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate For the State : Md. Shahabuddin, SC - VII : Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad, AC to SC-VII ------ HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ Order No:- 02, Dated:- 12th May, 2026 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the State files counter affidavit. Keep the same on record. This is the second journey of the petitioner for grant of regular bail. Earlier, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.01.2026 passed in B.A. No. 11790 of 2025. The petitioner has moved before this Court for grant of bail in connection with Hussainabad P.S. Case No. 169 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 203 of 2026, registered for the offences punishable under sections 409, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in serious financial irregularity committed during his tenure as Branch Manager of Jharkhand Regional Gramin Bank, JRG Dangwar Branch. It is next submitted by drawing attention of the Court towards page no. 47 of the brief which is the arrest memo of the petitioner, that no where the ground of arrest has been mentioned therein. By relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others. reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500, para no. 66.4 of which reads as under:- “66.4. In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free.” as also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dr. Rajinder Rajan Vs. Union of India & Another dated 01.04.2026 passed in criminal appeal arising out of the SLP (Cr.) No. 3326 of 2026 is replaced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in this respect. It is further submitted that since the petitioner has been arrested with non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of grounds of arrest having been explained to him so, he is entitled to be at liberty to be set free. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 26 of the bail application; although three witnesses have been examined. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been arrested on 16.10.2025 and remanded to custody on 17.10.2025 as mentioned in para no. 15 of this bail application. It is also submitted that, charge-sheet has been submitted. It is next 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. Learned counsel for the State relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1228, in Para No. 36 of which, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that if a person is arrested on warrant, the grounds for reasons for arrest is the warrant itself. If warrant is read out, that is sufficient compliance with the requirement that he should be informed of the grounds of his arrest. On being asked by the Court, to the learned counsel for the State as to whether the arrest memo, the copy of the certified copy of which he has been kept at page 47 of this brief, anyway, indicates that the petitioner was arrested in execution of warrant. It is submitted that there is no such reference in the arrest memo to suggest that the petitioner was arrested in execution of the warrant issued by any Court of Law. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials on record, this Court finds that since the grounds of arrest as not been explained to the petitioner in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dr. Rajinder Ranjan Vs. Union of India & Another, this is a fit case where the petitioner is entitled to bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the abovenamed 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 S.D.J.M., Palamau, in connection with Hussainabad P.S. Case No. 169 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 203 of 2026, with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial of the case and will furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the 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.) Dated – 12.05.2026 Aditi