2026:JHHC:14515 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 675 of 2026 ------ Hemanti Devi, aged about 45 years, wife of Rajendra Kumar, R/o 1-022, Naya More, Sector 2/A, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajan Sahay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. ------ 03/12.05.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Mandu (Kujju) P.S. Case No. 238 of 2019, registered for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and some person fraudulently used the PAN card and Aadhar card of the petitioner and opened a fake Company namely Sarwsree Maa Maheshwari Coal Trading Company and the allegations are made of misappropriating input tax credit. He submits that the petitioner is innocent. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner is the proprietor of Sarwsree Maa Maheshwari Coal Trading Company and that has come in different paragraphs of the case diary. He submits that the place shown of the said Company was investigated in paragraph 5 of the case diary and it has come that at the same place no Company in the name of Sarwsree Maa Maheshwari Coal Trading Company is being run and the allegations are further supported by other witnesses in the case diary. On these grounds, he submits that the anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. Considering that the allegations are there against the petitioner that the petitioner is proprietor of Sarwsree Maa Maheshwari 2026:JHHC:14515 Coal Trading Company and in para 5 of the case diary, the said Company was not found in existence and in this way allegations are made of misutilizing the input tax credit on the e-way bill to the tune of Rs.5,57,70,448/- and e-way bill for inward supply for sum of Rs.5,46,12,970/- and the other witnesses have also supported in the case diary, in the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, is hereby, rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Anit Uploaded 14.05.2026