2026:JHHC:15714 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 2792 of 2026 --- Manoj Kumar … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through A.C.B. … … Opposite Party --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Spl.P.P. --- 02/29.05.2026 Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Spl.P.P. for the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with ACB, Ranchi P.S. Case No. 08 of 2025. It has been alleged that a first information report was instituted against one Raju Sahu for embezzlement being Dumri P.S. Case No. 08 of 2025 in which the petitioner was the investigating officer. It has been alleged that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was demanded as illegal gratification to dilute the case and in course of negotiation, the demand was reduced to Rs.1,00,000/-. A verification was conducted and having found the allegations to be true a trap was laid, but since the petitioner was not present, the said exercise could not be completed. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly, the petitioner is the investigating officer of Dumri P.S. Case No. 08 of 2025 in which the complainant is an accused. The petitioner is a sub-inspector of police. It has been submitted that if the trap was conducted, the petitioner would not have a case but at the same time it cannot be ruled out that the complainant in order to create pressure upon the petitioner who is investigating his case might have made a false allegation of demand of illegal gratification by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Learned Spl.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and has submitted that an attempt to 2026:JHHC:15714 seek illegal gratification would also be an offence and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Admittedly, though a verification was conducted by the A.C.B., but the trap did not conclude successfully on account of the absence of the petitioner and the only material which is available to the prosecution is of the verification and the allegation made by the complainant. The nature of allegation is a two edged sword including the complainant as well as the petitioner and in fact the same appears to be in a dormant state on account of the trap having not been conducted due to absence of the petitioner. In such circumstances therefore, I am inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Regard being had to the above, the petitioner above named is directed to surrender in the court below within four weeks and pray for bail, and in that event, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in connection with ACB Ranchi P.S. Case No. 08 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This application stands allowed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) Uploaded Amar – Samarth Uploaded on-__/05/2026