( 2026:JHHC:26468 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 4974 of 2026 Sonu Thakur, aged about 36 years, son of Banshidhar Thakur, resident of village and Post Taro Siladon, P.S. Khunti, District-Khunti, Jharkhand ...... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mrs. Sarweshwari Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate 02/ 02.09.2026: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No. 231 of 2025, for the offence registered under Sections 338, 336(3), 319(2), 318(4) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M. at Khunti. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. She next submits that false allegations are made of inducing the informant and villagers and taking loan in their name. On these grounds, she submits that the petitioner may kindly be granted anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the informant and State jointly submit that earlier two of the co-accused persons namely, Rohit Kumar Trehan and Anjani Kumar Singh have moved before this Court in A.B.A. No. 2839 of 2026 and by way of detailed order their anticipatory bail has been rejected. Learned counsel for the informant further adds that in the said A.B.A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed and considering Annexure-F of the supplementary counter affidavit the finding of this Court is there that Rs. 13.23 crores was credited in the account of this petitioner. He submits ( 2026:JHHC:26468 ) that there is serious allegation against the petitioner and in view of that the anticipatory bail of the petitioner may kindly be rejected. 5. In the F.I.R allegations are made of inducing the persons and inviting them to take loan and also of taking their Pan Card, Aadhar Card and signature on the blank cheque and loan has not been provided to the informant and others however they received have notice from the financier that they have taken loan and they are not paying EMI and when the informant and others came to know about this fact they felt that they have been cheated. Further two of the co-accused persons have moved before this Court in A.B.A. No. 2839 of 2026 and in the light of Annexure-F of the supplementary counter affidavit filed in the said A.B.A, the Court came to the conclusion that Rs. 13.23 crores was credited in the account of this petitioner. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and according his prayer for anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected. Dt.02.09.2026 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-