( 2026:JHHC:18982 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 2101 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2101 of 2026 Ashutosh Kumar @ Ashutosh Kumar Yadav @ Ravi Kumar Yadav, aged about 34 years, S/o Choube Nandan Prasad Yadav, R/o Lalgutva, Kathal More, Nagari, P.S. Nagri, P.O. Lal Gutua, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand-835303, UID No.2160 0487 2943 … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ganesh Khanna, Advocate (Through VC) Mr. Abdullah Umar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advocate ----- 05/30.06.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through Video Conferencing, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Belbadda P.S. Case No.71/2025, registered for the offence under Sections 308(2), 318(4), 115(2), 118(1), 352, 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the Court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through Video Conferencing submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that false allegation is made of taking Rs.3,20,000/- on the pretext of providing service in the Forest Department to the son of the informant. He then submits that in fact the fact remains that the father of the petitioner is having property in the State of Bihar and the informant wants to purchase the same and, therefore, the present case has been lodged. He next submits that the petitioner has not taken any amount on the pretext of providing job to the son of the informant. On these grounds, he submits that ( 2026:JHHC:18982 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 2101 of 2026 anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State and informant jointly opposed the prayer and submit that the allegations are there of taking Rs.3,20,000/- on the pretext of providing job. They further submit that another case arising out of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is pending against the petitioner and his father. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the informant further submits that for returning the said amount, cheque in question has been issued, however, the said cheque has been dishonoured. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State draws attention of the Court to para 1 of the case diary and submits that Choube Nandan Prasad Yadav is having two sons Ravi Kumar Yadav, aged about 35 years and Ashutosh Kumar Yadav, aged about 30 years, however, the present application has been filed by Ashutosh Kumar @ Ashutosh Kumar Yadav @ Ravi Kumar Yadav. He submits that even the petitioner has not come before this Court with clean hand and he is trying to show that he is also Ravi Kumar Yadav, however, Choube Nandan Prasad Yadav is having two sons. He also submits that the petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation. On these grounds, he submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 7. In the FIR, there is allegation of taking Rs.3,20,000/- on the pretext of providing job to the son of the informant and for returning the said amount, a cheque has also been issued, which has been dishonoured and for that, another case is pending. In para 1 of the case diary, it has come that Choube Nandan Prasad Yadav is having two sons, namely, Ravi Kumar Yadav, aged about 35 years and Ashutosh Kumar Yadav, aged about 30 years and in the ( 2026:JHHC:18982 ) -3- A.B.A. No. 2101 of 2026 FIR, the allegations are also there against Ravi Kumar Yadav and Ashutosh Kumar Yadav, however, the present application has been filed by Ashutosh Kumar @ Ashutosh Kumar Yadav @ Ravi Kumar Yadav, which clearly suggests that the petitioner is trying to show that he is one person, whereas, in the case diary it has come that Choube Nandan Prasad Yadav is having two sons. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner has not come before this Court with clean hand. Even it has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, as such, the prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. 8. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 30th June, 2026 Ajay/