[2026:JHHC:19914] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3660 of 2026 1. Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Gautam, age about 44 years, son of Satyendra Narayan Gautam @ Satendra Narayan Goutam, resident of House No.- 1688 S/F, Gali Guljari Road, near Choupal, Kotla, Mubarakpur, P.O.- Kotla Mubarakpur, P.S-Mubarakpur, Dist.-Central Delhi, New Delhi. 2. Binesh Kumar, age about 31 years, son of Sitaram Mahto, resident of Village- Jharpo, P.O.- Jharpo, P.S. Ichak, Dist. Hazaribag, Jharkhand. 3. Kshitij Anand, age about 37 years, son of Bijay Soni, resident of House no.- 130, Bara Bazar, Near Maa Ambeyu Hotel, P.O.- Hazaribag, P.S.- Sadar Hazaribag, Dist. Hazaribag, Jharkhand. ..... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. S.K. Soni, Advocate. For the State : Mr. S.K. Tiwari, A.P.P. ------ 03/ 07.07.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Barhi (Padma) P.S. Case No. 367 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No. 2027 of 2023, registered for the offence under Sections 406, 420(B), 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of I.T. Act, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribag. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioners have not withdrawn Rs. 5,88,500/- from the account of the [2026:JHHC:19914] -2- husband of the informant. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioners. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that serious allegations are there against these petitioners of withdrawing the said amount from the Bank account of the husband of the informant and the husband of the informant has died and thereafter the said has occurred. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. The petitioners are said to be the friends of the informant and allegations are made of withdrawing Rs. 5,88,500/- by way of using the informant’s late husband that too from his ICICI credit card and that has come in para-43 of the case diary and the same has already been considered by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-07.07.2026 Amitesh/-