2026:JHHC:18661 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- A.B.A. No. 3311 of 2026 ---- Shruti Salil Tendulkar @ Shruti S. Tendulkar wife of Salil Vishnu Tendulkar, aged about 53 years, at present residing at LIC Mutual Fund Office situated at Industrial Assurance Building, 4th Floor, Opposite Church Gate Station, Mumbai, PO and PS Church Gate, District Mumbai City, Maharashtra.... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Ranjit Das, son of late Ramesh Chandra Das, resident of R/247, Bhalubasa Line No.9, PO Agrico, PS Sitaramdera, Town Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur .... Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate Miss Aditi Raj, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate ---- 2/25.06.2026 Heard learned counsels for petitioner and for State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.1007 of 2009, for offence registered under section 409, 465, 468, 471 of the IPC, pending in court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamshedpur. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was working in LIC Mutual Fund since the year 2000 and was posted as Executive Assistant, Legal Department for the period 27.2.2000 to July, 2006 and thereafter the petitioner was posted as Assistant Manager (HR & Admn.) with effect from August, 2006 to 2026:JHHC:18661 2 March, 2010 and as Assistant Manager (Corporate Marketing) with effect from April, 2010 to July, 2012 and further the details of posting has been disclosed in paragraph no.7 of the petition. He next submits that the allegations in the complaint petition has been made that the complainant has invested Rs.1,70,000/- and the details/statement has not been provided. He next submits that the petitioner is not named in the complaint petition and the other officers of LIC Mutual Fund have been made accused. He next submits that after the cognizance the name of the petitioner has been furnished and thereafter the summons has been issued. He also submits that now on the said investment of Rs.1,70,000/- the complainant is having value of Rs.12,91,590.19. He next submits that the valuation of the said investment is there, and in view of that, the allegation of misappropriating Rs.1,70,000/- is not correct and on these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail to the petitioner may kindly be granted. 4. Learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that the petitioner happened to be the officer of LIC Mutual Fund and the allegations are there of misappropriating Rs.1,70,000/- and in view of that anticipatory bail to the petitioner may kindly be rejected. 5. Considering that the petitioner is an employee of LIC Mutual Fund and the allegations are made of misappropriating Rs.1,70,000/- and the petitioner was not made accused in the 2026:JHHC:18661 3 complaint initially, however, after the order taking cognizance, the petitioner has received the summons and it has been pointed out that now the valuation of the said investment made by the complainant is of Rs.12,91,590.19 and complainant can withdraw the same, and in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. 6. Accordingly, petitioner, above named, is hereby directed to surrender before learned court within three weeks from today, and in event of his surrender/arrest, petitioner, above named, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), with two sureties of like amount each, to satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamshedpur, in connection with Complaint Case No.1007 of 2009, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 482(2) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 25.06.2026 SI/