2026:JHHC:14461 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 607 of 2026 ------ 1. Dilip Digar, aged about 45 years, son of Baldev Digar, resident of Village Pichhari, Pichhari Uttari, Gagi, P.O. and P.S. Pichhari, District Bokaro, Jharkhand 2. Rahul Kumar Deegar @ Rahul Kumar Digar, aged about 24 years, son of Dilip Digar, resident of Village Pichhari, Pichhari Uttari, Gagi, P.O. and P.S. Pichhari, District Bokaro, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners : Mr. Ankit Apurva, Advocate For the State : Ms. Lily Sahay, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate ------ 02/12.05.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Petarbar P.S. Case No. 142 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 318, 351 and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 is a business man and petitioner no.2 is son of petitioner no.1. He submits that false allegations are made of withdrawing of the amount from the Account of the informant. He next submits that the loan has been taken by the informant from the Bank and the informant himself has withdrawn the amount from his Account and the allegations are made that the petitioners have withdrawn the amount by taking ATM card from him. He also submits that from the counter affidavit of the State, it transpires that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in view of the materials brought in the counter affidavit. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State and informant oppose the prayer and submit that the allegations are there of withdrawing of the amount. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the informant further submits that the ATM card has been taken by the petitioner no.1 and from the salary 2026:JHHC:14461 Account of the informant, the amount has been withdrawn as the petitioner no.1 happens to the moneylender and the informant has taken some amount as loan on the interest from petitioner no.1. In view of that, he has withdrawn the money through the ATM card of the informant. On these grounds, he submits that the anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 6. On query made, learned counsel for the State fairly submits that it has come in para 64 of the case diary that whatever salary was credited to the informant’s Account, that was withdrawn through ATM and cheques from the next date. She also submits that even Bank Manager has stated in para 32 of the case diary that no payment is made to anyone by the Bank except to the Account holder in absence of Account holder. 7. In view of the above and considering the statement of the Bank Manager particularly para 32 of the case dairy, it transpires that the payment is made to only the Account holder and no other person is allowed to withdraw the amount. Prima facie, it appears that what role the petitioners have played in withdrawing the said amount, has not come yet in the investigation as per the case diary, in the attending facts and circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the above-named petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned Court within two weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrender, they shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, in connection with Petarbar P.S. Case No. 142 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Anit Uploaded 14.05.2026