[ 2026:JHHC:14855 ] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2550 of 2026 Dinesh Kumar, Aged about 40 Years, S/o Late Chandrasekhar Sharma, Resident of Qr. No. GH 19, Gayatri Nagar, Sector 2, HEC, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Son of Ram Jinesh Singh, Resident of Sant Nagar Pandra, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Ratu, District- Ranchi, Opposite Parties Jharkhand. ..... … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P. ------ 03/ 14.05.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No. 264 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the loan has been taken by one Ravikant Dikshit. He next submits that even if any forgery or cheating has been done, the same was done by said Ravikant Dikshit and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has nothing to do with the said misappropriation of the money of the informant. 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 [ 2026:JHHC:14855 ] -2- prayer and submits that the petitioner is the first person, who has introduced the informant to enter into an agreement and he along with Ravikant Dikshit and one other person Saurav Pandey have cheated the informant. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. In the FIR, it has been stated that this petitioner has induced the informant to enter into an agreement for purchasing of a vehicle and it has also been alleged that after payment of Rs. 7,17,200/- NOC has been issued and the receipt thereof was found in due course, which are found to be forged. 6. In the 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:-14.05.2026 Amitesh/-