2026:JHHC:20021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.3705 of 2020 ------ Nand Kumar Sujata, widow of Late Nirmal Prasad, resident of house No.142, Kids Garden, Govindpur, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad. … … Petitioner Versus 1. State Bank of India, through its Zonal Manager, State Bank of India, Bank More, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad. 2. Senior Manager, State Bank of India, City Branch, Madhuri Complex, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad. 3. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, City Branch, Madhuri Complex, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad. 4. Siddharth Kumar, son of Late Nirmal Prasad, resident of Kids Garden, Govindpur, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek S. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Apurba Banerjee, Advocate Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Abhijit Kumar, Advocate ------ 15/ 06.07.2026 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "for issuance of an appropriate writ/ rule/ order/ direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the Respondent Bank especially Respondent No.3 to release the entire fixed deposit amounting to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- [Rupees Ten Lakhs Only] including the interest accumulated thereupon deposited by Respondent No.4 out of money illegally withdrawn by him from the saving account of the Petitioner using her forged signature on the stolen cheques, in the account of the Respondent No.4 after releasing the hold on his account to enable him to transfer the said amount 2026:JHHC:20021 2 to the Petitioner in the light of his undertaking to return the said amount as per their agreement dated 24.03.2018 being a condition precedent for granting regular bail to the Respondent No.4 vide order dated 28.03.2018 passed by Additional Session's Judge-XIV, Dhanbad in B.P. No.274/ 2018 arising out of Govindpur P.S. case No.297/16 U/s 467/468/471/420/120B." 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner, who is none but the mother of respondent No.4, that the amount of Rs.10 lakhs, which her son had withdrawn fraudulently, has now been returned to her by her son. 4. Considering the said submission, since the amount has been deposited, I am not inclined to enter any further in the issue. 5. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 06th July, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 10.07.2026