2026:JHHC:22424 --1-- A.B.A. No. 4195 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4195 of 2026 ---- Niraj Kumar @ Pankaj Kumar Das @ Pankaj Das @ Niraj Kumar Das, aged about 36 years, S/o Laxmi Das, R/o House No.3, Ward No.26, Durga Mandir, Rangapahari, PO and PS – Rikhiya, District – Deoghar, Jharkhand, 814157 .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Satish Prasad, Advocate ---- 02/29.07.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner through V.C. as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.230 of 2025 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(4), 352, 308(5), 111(4), 109(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of Arms Act pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner through V.C. submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the allegation of kidnapping and demand of extortion are there against the named accused persons. He further submits that only it has come that accused persons have stated to take the informant to 2026:JHHC:22424 --2-- A.B.A. No. 4195 of 2026 farm house of the petitioner. He then submits that apart from that there is no allegation against the petitioner. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner is accomplice of those persons and serious allegations are there of abducting and demanding of extortion to the tune of Rs.10 lacs and in view of that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. In the FIR itself it has been stated that accused persons have called upon to bring the informant in the farm house of the petitioner which prima facie suggests that the petitioner was accomplice of the said accused persons. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 29.07.2026 Sangam/