2026:JHHC:28165 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4450 of 2026 Sunil Kumar Sah, S/o Sarjun Prasad Sah, aged about 37 eyars, Resident of T.G. Road, P.O., P.S. & District Sahebganj, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus Central Bureau of INvestigation … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Mohan Mishra, Advocate For the Opp. Party-CBI : Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, Advocate --- 08/17th September 2026 1. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioner who is apprehending arrest in connection with RC Case No. 06(A)/2022(D) for the offence registered under Sections 120B r/w 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) & (d) and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a)of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Spl. Judge, CBI-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-V, Dhanbad. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happens to be a safai karmachari working in the bank and is not named in the FIR. The allegation against the petitioner has been summarized at page No. 81 of the bail application, which is as follow: - “(vi) Sunil Kumar Sah (A-6): Sunil Kumar Sah was engaged by the SBI PBB Sahebganj branch through vendors for cleaning and maintenance work of the bank. However, he conspired with Manoj Kumar, the then Branch Manager, PBB, SBI, Sahebganj and actively assisted him in the fraudulent activities. Munsi Soren, one of the witness categorically stated that Sunil Kumar Sah collected his signed cheque for withdrawing the money transferred in his account, after debiting from the Pension account of Dubai Murmu. Another witness Jagarnath also stated 2026:JHHC:28165 2 that Sunil Kumar Sah transferred Rs 149000/- in his account and subsequently collected 2.5 lakhs in cash from him before his loan of Rs 4 lakhs was sanctioned by the bank.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is surprising that Munsi Soren would give a signed cheque for withdrawal of money to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer for bail and has referred to paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit to submit that the petitioner conspired with accused Manoj Kumar in order to unauthorizely debit the accounts for causing loss to government money. The petitioner was engaged by SBI PBB Sahebganj Branch for cleaning and maintenance of the bank and his culpability is discernible in the instance when there is credit of Rs. 2,32,000/- on 30.12.2015 in the bank account standing in the name of Munsi Soren after debiting from the account standing in the name of Dubai Murmu. Munsi Soren happens to be a retired government official has stated that the petitioner had collected a signed cheque from him in good faith for withdrawing the said amount. The learned counsel has also submitted that during investigation, the witnesses have stated that the petitioner was close associate of the prime accused, namely, Manoj Kumar who obtained undue advantage for getting their loans cleared from the PBB Branch. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail and has referred to the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by this Court in ABA No. 3986 of 2025, wherein the anticipatory bail application of Manoj Kumar has been rejected. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the allegation of defalcation of money from the pensioners’ account; the allegation that after sanction of loan amount the petitioner used to get money ; one witness Jagarnath also stated that the petitioner , Sunil Kumar Sah, transferred Rs 149000/- in his account and subsequently collected 2.5 lakhs in cash from him before his loan of Rs 4 lakhs was 2026:JHHC:28165 3 sanctioned by the bank and it has come during investigation that the witnesses have stated that the petitioner was close associate of the prime accused, namely, Manoj Kumar, who obtained undue advantage for getting their loans cleared from the PBB Branch, whose anticipatory bail has already been rejected by this court, this Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected. 7. However, the regular bail of the petitioner will be considered without being influenced by any observation made in this order. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 17.09.2026 Uploaded On: 19.09.2026 Mukul/-