JAINENDRA KUMAR ALIS JAINENDRA MISHRA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
A.B.A./1218/2026 · 2026-04-02
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 3307 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 3307 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:JHHC:9474] -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 1218 of 2026
Jainendra Kumar @ Jainendra Mishra S/o Uma Kant Mishra aged about 41 years Resident of Village- Mishir Jamuwa, P.O. Sangram Lodhiya, P.S. Jasidih, Dist- Deoghar.
..... … Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand
..... … Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------ For the Petitioner : Mr. L.C. Roy, Advocate. For the State
: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. ------
04/ 02.04.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.
2.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Jasidih P.S. Case No. 298 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Deoghar.
3.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has nothing to do with the opening of the Bank account of the informant in the ICICI Bank. He next submits that when the informant has received the notice from the Income Tax Department twice alleging therein of making huge transaction from the said account and thereafter the case has been lodged.
4.
Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner used the documents of the informant and has opened the Bank account in the name of the informant and transaction to the tune of more than one crore has been made from that account.
5.
It transpires that the allegation is there of using the
[2026:JHHC:9474] -2-
documents of the informant in opening the Bank account in the ICICI Bank in the name of the informant and from that account, huge transactions have been made and pursuant to the notice received from the Income Tax Department, the case has been lodged.
6.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to provide the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. As such, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-02.04.2026 Amitesh/-