( 2026:JHHC:14403 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 409 of 2026 Dharambir Kumar, aged about 40 years, son of Bhola Singh, resident of Chiragora Ashman Road, P.O. and P.s. Hirapur, District-Jharkhand ...... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A.P.P 02/ 12.05.2026: Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No. 236 of 2024, registered under sections 318(2), 338, 336(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. 3. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case on the confessional statement of co-accused Kalwant Singh who is himself an accused in this case. He next submits that an amount of Rs. 58,50,150/- has been withdrawn by Kalwant Singh @ Happy and Kesav Kumar Singh who is accountant of the informant through RTGS. He further submits that withdrawal has been made by them however, fraudulently credited the said amount in the account of the petitioner and petitioner is nothing to do with the said amount. He next submits that co-accused persons namely, Kalwant Singh @ Happy and Kesav Kumar Singh have faced the trial and they have been acquitted. He next submits that section 338 of BNS is non-bailable. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits ( 2026:JHHC:14403 ) that petitioner has not co-operated in the investigation and in para 100 of the case diary it has come that mobile number of the petitioner was linked with the account of M/s Vishar Enterprises and from whose account the said amount of Rs. 58,50,150/- has been withdrawn. He next submits that acquittal of another co-accused persons is nothing to do with the anticipatory bail of the petitioner as the petitioner is evading the investigation and trial and in view of that the anticipatory bail of the petitioner may kindly be rejected. 5. In para 100 of the case diary it has come that mobile number of the petitioner was linked with the account of M/s Vishar Enterprises from which account Rs. 58,50,150/- was withdrawn. Thus there is direct link of the petitioner in withdrawal of the said amount. Two of the co-accused have been acquitted by the learned court, however, that cannot be a ground of granting anticipatory to the petitioner as he is not co-operating in the investigation and investigation is still pending. 6. It is well settled that in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Balmukund Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh” reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 158 that acquittal of the another co-accused does not ipso facto entitle the accused to the relief of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity, particularly when the accused himself failed to cooperate with the Court. Moreover, the accusations against the accused have not been tried yet and are required to be independently examined. 7. There is direct allegation of credit of the said amount of Rs. 58,50,150/- linked with the mobile number of this petitioner. 8. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not ( 2026:JHHC:14403 ) inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. 9. It is made clear that if the petitioners move before the learned court by way of filing regular bail the same shall be decided in accordance with law without being prejudice to this order. Dt.12.05.2026 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-