2026:JHHC:6457 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 141 of 2026 Md. Shahzad Alam, aged about 30 years, S/o Late Md Alim, R/o- Lawatu Niche Toli Village- Pundag, P.O.- Pundag & P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate : Mr. Mehul Raj, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Ruby Pandey, APP --- 03/11.03.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State has filed counter- affidavit during the court proceedings which is taken on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 26.08.2025 in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 97 of 2025, registered under Sections 420/388/406/419/386/120B of Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is the 2nd husband of Firdoush Bano and as per the First Information Report, the informant has been giving money time and again to Firdoush Bano. He submits that there was certain relationship between the lady and the informant and the money was given to her by way of love and affection. He also submits that when the aforesaid relationship came to light of the petitioner, then the First Information Report has been instituted making false allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner had also extorted money from the informant along with Firdoush Bano. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has also referred to screenshot of certain whatsApp chats annexed with the bail application and submits that they are not part of the case-diary, but 2026:JHHC:6457 2 those materials have been filed along with the bail application for appreciation of the fact that Firdoush Bano had relationship with the informant of the case. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and the amount has also been taken by the petitioner in his bank account which has come in paragraph 52 of case-diary and is also mentioned in the impugned judgment. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation and the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner had also extorted money from the informant and this is supported by the transaction of money from the bank account of the informant to the bank account of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:11.03.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:11.03.2026