ANUP KUMAR KEWAT @ ANUP KEWAT v. STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./3836/2026 · 2026-06-24
Anil Kumar Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 17781 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 17781 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:JHHC:18590] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.3836 of 2026
------ Anup Kumar Kewat @ Anup Kewat, aged about 39 years, S/o Rameshwar Kewat, R/o 140, Village Koilarai, Kalyanpur, P.O. & P.S. Sohagpur, District Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh. At present: R/o Flat No. 3-E, Block C, 3rd Floor, Ashray Garden, Dinkar Nagar, Birsa Chowk, P.O. & P.S. Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi.
.... .... …. Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pranav P. Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Mstar Akash, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Addl.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate
------
Order No:-03 Dated:-24-06-2026
Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.118 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner while working in the hotel of the informant took payment from the customer but did not transfer the same to the account of the hotel and defalcated Rs.35,19,122/- and thereafter, he left the hotel. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that charge sheet has been submitted in this case and except the two cheques bounce cases, the petitioner is not involved in any other case. It is also submitted that the informant in order to avoid liability under GST and other statutory tax heads, used to receive payments through the private accounts of his employees including the petitioner and the petitioner has already paid substantial amount to the informant, his relatives as well as the hotel, as per the direction of the informant through UPI transactions. It is further submitted that the case has been foisted to mount pressure upon the petitioner and to frustrate his legitimate claims against the management.
It is next submitted that the grounds of arrest has never been mentioned in the arrest memo and the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra & Another reported in 2025 INSC 1288 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that non-compliance of the Constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee, the grounds of arrest, renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal and the person will be at set at liberty. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 26.02.2026 as is evident from para-1 of the instant bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant oppose the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submit by drawing attention of this Court to the copy of the function prospectus of the hotel as well as some other papers that in respect of money which has been paid by the petitioner to the informant, GST has already been paid by the hotel. So, the contention of the petitioner that he was receiving the money on behalf of the hotel as per the instruction of the informant has no leg to stand. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be released on bail.
Considering the facts of this case, the above-named petitioner is
directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.118 of 2025 with the condition that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 24.06.2026 Saroj/