2026:JHHC:19232 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- A.B.A. No. 3456 of 2026 ---- Rakesh Kumar Mahato, aged about 34 years, son of Anand Mahato, resident of Paharigora, PO Khas Jeenagora, PS- Baliarpur (Alakdiha O.P.), District Dhanbad, Jharkhand .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate ---- 2/01.07.2026 Heard learned counsels for petitioner and for State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Baliapur PS Case No.103 of 2024, for offence registered under section 467, 468, 471, 420, 406/34 of IPC, pending in court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation and the allegations are false and the petitioner has also replied to the notice issued under section 41-A Cr.PC. He next submits that the documents are not fake, however, false allegations are made, and on these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer and submits that serious allegations are there of misappropriating a sum of Rs.63 lacs against the petitioner and in view of that, anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. In the FIR, the allegations are made against the petitioner that the petitioner was working as Accounting Clerk cum Computer Operator under 15th Financial Commission in Baliapur Block, however, and in the enquiry, it is found that A.M. Enterprises 2026:JHHC:19232 2 run by Mrs Uma Mahto, who is wife of the present petitioner and his brother Naresh Mahato and his wife, Anita Mahato were working as vendors/suppliers in the schemes of the Block and Rs.19 lac has been paid in the bank account of that establishment in the financial years 2023-24 and later on, the said establishment was banned due to not depositing the amount of GST and royalty etc. regularly and it has been further alleged that a sum of Rs.5.58 lacs has been transferred from the account of A.M. Enterprises in the personal account of the present petitioner and further on enquiry, it has come that government amount of Rs.44 lacs vested in various schemes in the 15th Finance Commission has been transferred to the personal bank account of the present petitioner and the allegations are also there that the petitioner has transferred a part of government amount from the account of the beneficiaries to his personal account and the vouchers which were used in transferring the amount were also found to be fake and many of them have not been passed by the competent authority and in paragraph no.3, 18, 25, 26, 27, 28, 36 and 59 of the case diary, the witnesses have supported the case against the petitioner, and in the attending facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner, and as such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected and consequently, this anticipatory bail application being A.B.A.No.3456 of 2026 is, hereby, dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 01.07.2026 SI/