( 2026:JHHC:19350 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 2662 of 2026 Sanjeev Kumar Pradhan, aged about 31 years, son of Srinivas Pradhan, resident of Line No. 12, Tuiladungri, P.O. and P.S. Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum ...... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kumar Karmakar, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P 02/ 02.07.2026: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No. 135 of 2025, registered under sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS, 2023, pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M, Jamshedpur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He next submits that there is contract between petitioner and Bajaj Finance for sale of the vehicle. He next submits that false allegations have been made of transferring of the amount in the account of the petitioner and not handing over the vehicle. On these grounds, he submits that privilege of anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the Bajaj Finance transferred Rs. 7,99,980/- through RTGS on 24.11.2024 and further transferred Rs. 10,79,980 on 17.01.2025 in the account of the petitioner and allegations are made of not providing the vehicle and in view of that anticipatory bail of the petitioner may kindly be rejected. 5. The aforesaid amount has been transferred in the account of the ( 2026:JHHC:19350 ) petitioner that has not been denied in course of the argument by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The allegations are there that the petitioner has not handed over the vehicle inspite of receiving the said amount. One of the buyer has also filed the complaint case and in the said complaint case he has stated that petitioner has informed him that loan has not been sanctioned and in view of that he has withdrawn option of purchasing vehicle. In the light of said complaint case, it transpires that amount was transferred in the account of the petitioner and false communication has been made to the buyer that loan has not been sanctioned. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly his prayer for anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected. Dt.02.07.2026 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-