2026:JHHC:20798 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3815 of 2026 ------ 1. Sujit Kumar Sinha, son of Late Devendra Prasad Singh, aged about 59 years 2. Rina Sinha @ Reena Sinha, wife of Sujit Kumar Sinha, aged about 55 years Both resident of B.N. 01, Rajendra Nagar, Gayatri Colony, Bodiya Uttari, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Karbir, Advocate ------ 02/14.07.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Bokaro Thermal P.S. Case No. 11 of 2026, registered for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 406, 420, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and the petitioners are happen to be Agents of Sahara India. He further submits that the money has been invested by the petitioners after taking the same from the informant however, false allegations are made of misappropriating the said money to the tune of Rs.6,23,364/-. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State and the informant jointly oppose the prayer and submit that the petitioners have misappropriated the amount taken on the plea of depositing the same in the Sahara India. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the informant further submits that even the receipts issued by the petitioners are found to be forged as after the Government of India launched the CRCS- Sahara Refund Portal, the informant submitted refund applications in respect of himself and his family 2026:JHHC:20798 members however, the informant was shocked to know that the portal repeatedly reflected discrepancies such as ‘wrong membership number’, ‘wrong receipt number’, ‘wrong society name’, ‘wrong Aadhaar name mismatch’ and similar errors, despite the particulars furnished by the informant being accurate and in accordance with the documents supplied by the petitioners. On these grounds, he submits that the anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 6. In para 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the informant, it has been stated that after the Government of India launched the CRCS- Sahara Refund Portal, the informant also applied for refund of the amount, however, repeatedly reflected discrepancies such as ‘wrong membership number’, ‘wrong receipt number’, ‘wrong society name’, ‘wrong Aadhaar. Thus, it is crystal clear that the petitioners have misappropriated the amount and not deposited the same in the Sahara India, in the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioners, is hereby, rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 14.07.2026 Anit Uploaded 15.07.2026