( 2026:JHHC:24092 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 3777 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3777 of 2026 Shad Alam, aged about 22 years, S/o Md. Irsad Alam, R/o Village Kolhua, P.O. Madhar, P.S. Ben, District- Nalanda, Bihar … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakraverty, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. ----- 03/12.08.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No.05 of 2026, registered for the offence under Sections 140(1), 140(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the name of the petitioner has come only on confessional statement. He then submits that initially the petitioner was not named in the FIR and subsequently, the name of the petitioner has surfaced. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that serious allegations are there of kidnapping of businessman of Jamshedpur. He submits that in view of that, the prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. Admittedly, initially the FIR was instituted against unknown person as it is the case of kidnapping and subsequently the name of the petitioner has ( 2026:JHHC:24092 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 3777 of 2026 surfaced. At pages 29, 30, 31 and 32 of the case diary, statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS are annexed, wherein, they have supported the case of the informant and they have stated that WhatsApp call in mobile number was made from unknown person. Page 86 of the case diary is the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, wherein, he has supported the case and narrated the story of kidnapping. It has been recorded in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the mobile tower of this petitioner is matching to the other accused persons. The co-accused in his confessional statement at page 108 of the case diary has stated that the petitioner was also involved in the crime. 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, his prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. 6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 12th August, 2026 Ajay/