( 2026:JHHC:20431 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 3167 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3167 of 2026 Pinki Devi, aged about 44 years, wife of Manoj Mahto, resident of Village- Khetko, P.O. Khetko, P.S. Bagodar, District- Giridih … Petitioner -Versus- State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Govind Ray Karan, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. ----- 07/10.07.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Bagodar P.S. Case No.286/2025, registered for the offence under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61(2) of the BNS, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the allegation of taking money on the pretext of doubling the same by different persons is not correct. He next submits that no money has been received by the petitioner. On these grounds, he submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner may kindly be granted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner is the main culprit and she has taken money from different persons on the ground of doubling the same. She further submits that since there is allegation against the petitioner and in view of that, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not been pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, however, by the impugned order itself, the petitioner’s ( 2026:JHHC:20431 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 3167 of 2026 husband and son have been granted anticipatory bail. On these grounds, she submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner may kindly be rejected. 5. In the FIR, there is direct allegation against the petitioner of taking money from different persons on the ground of doubling the same. The entire money has been misappropriated by the petitioner. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, as such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected. 6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 10th July, 2026 Ajay/