2026:JHHC:17867 --1-- A.B.A. No. 1857 of 2026 with ABA No.2547 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1857 of 2026 ---- Dhiren Kumar Yadav, aged about 28 years, S/o Kamdeo Yadav, R/o village – Hathwari, PO – Padjori, PS – Madhupur, District – Deoghar, Jharkhand .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 2547 of 2026 ---- Santosh Kumar Mandal, aged about 29 years, son of Gunadhar Mandal, resident of village – Khamarbad, PO – Margomunda, PS – Deoghar, District – Deoghar, Jharkhand .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- A.B.A. No. 1857 of 2026 For the Petitioner :- Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate A.B.A. No. 2547 of 2026 For the Petitioner :- Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Advocate ---- 02/19.06.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. Both the ABAs are arising out of the same FIR and in view of that both the ABAs will be heard together. 3. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Madhupur P.S. Case No.177 of 2025, for the alleged offences 2026:JHHC:17867 --2-- A.B.A. No. 1857 of 2026 with ABA No.2547 of 2026 registered under Sections 338, 336(3), 340(2), 318(4), 316(2) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur. 4. Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in ABA No.1857 of 2026 submits that no amount has been credited in the account of the petitioner and the only allegations against the petitioner is made that the petitioner has used the forged document for withdrawal of the amount and apart from that there is no allegation against the petitioner. On this ground, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 5. Mr. Sumit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in ABA No.2547 of 2026 submits that same allegations are made against this petitioner and the amount has not been received and in view of that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that both the petitioners were indulged in creating the forged document for withdrawal of the amount and they used to deposit the said amount in the account of Vishnu Kumar Gop and thereafter withdrew the amount. He further submits that the witnesses in paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6 have supported the case of the prosecution. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail of the petitioners may kindly be rejected. 7. Looking into the contents of the FIR it transpires that there are direct allegation against the petitioners that these petitioners 2026:JHHC:17867 --3-- A.B.A. No. 1857 of 2026 with ABA No.2547 of 2026 have involved in transferring the amount to the tune of Rs.17,23,050/- under the signature of District Husbandry Officer, Deoghar in the account of Nitish Kumar Gop and thereafter the amount were withdrawn. In the FIR, it has also come that departmental enquiry was conducted by the bank and the said Vishnu Kumar Gop has disclosed that these petitioners got the amount transferred on the basis of forged letter and the money is of the government and further the witnesses in paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6 on the case diary have supported the prosecution case. 8. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners are hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 19.06.2026 Sangam/