( 2026:JHHC:14388 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 154 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 154 of 2026 Barun Deo Kumar @ Barundev Kumar, aged about 32 years, son of Mahendra Prasad Roy, resident of Village- Basbutti, P.O. Basbutti, P.S. Chakai, District- Jamui (Bihar) … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P. ----- 04/12.05.2026 Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Maheshpur P.S. Case No.29/2024, registered for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 471, 465, 468 of the IPC, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur. 3. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earlier moved before this Court in A.B.A. No.6504 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn as the petitioner has already complied notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and considering that there was no imminent threat of his arrest. He further submits that thereafter the learned Court has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner and other co-accused vide order dated 12.12.2025 and in view of that apprehension is there and, thereafter, second anticipatory bail petition was filed before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge has been pleased to reject the petition. He next submits that the co-accused has already been acquitted. He also submits that earlier anticipatory bail ( 2026:JHHC:14388 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 154 of 2026 application was not decided on merit and the petitioner is having merit in the present case. He further submits that there are general and omnibus allegations of defalcation of Rs. 43,67,321/- against all the accused persons and in view of that, the petitioner may kindly be granted anticipatory bail as the petitioner was the Branch Credit Manager of Bharat Financial Inclusion Limited. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the allegations are there against the petitioner of defalcation of Rs.43,67,321/- in collusion with the accused persons. He further submits that the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager of the said company and without any consent of other members of the company, the loan was sanctioned and the calculated amount has not been deposited in the company and in view of that, there is direct involvement of the petitioner and, as such, his prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. The allegations are there against the petitioner and others of defalcation of Rs.43,67,321/-. The said company was providing loan to the women for their development. It has been alleged that in absence of consent of other members of the said company, loan has been sanctioned and calculated amount has not been deposited in the company. The petitioner was posted as Branch Manager of the said company and the allegations are there of misappropriation of Rs.43,67,321/- against the petitioner and other accused persons. The witnesses at paras 6, 7 and 8 of the case diary have supported the prosecution case saying that fraudulently the money has been withdrawn from the bank account of members and also did not deposit the ( 2026:JHHC:14388 ) -3- A.B.A. No. 154 of 2026 amount collected from different centres and they in collusion with each other misappropriated Rs.43,67,321/-. The victims Rahamatul Sk. in para 9 and Majida Bibi in para 10 have also supported the prosecution case and they have specifically stated the role of the petitioner that without any permission from the members, the loan has been sanctioned and thereafter in collusion with other co-accused the amount of Rs.43,67,321/- has been misappropriated. Further, a co-accused has faced the trial and, thereafter, he has been acquitted, that cannot be a ground of grant of anticipatory bail especially when the petitioner has not cooperated in the investigation. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 205. 6. In in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, as such, his prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. 7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 12th May, 2026 Ajay/