2026:JHHC:9383 --1-- A.B.A. No. 1189 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1189 of 2026 ---- Gaurav Kumar @ Gourav Kumar, aged about 35 years, son of Niranjan Prasad Dubey, resident of Brahaman Tola, Gogri, PO and PS – Gogri, District – Khagariya, Gogari, State – Bihar .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate ---- 02/02.04.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Pakur Town P.S. Case No.319 of 2025 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 316(4), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 61(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Pakur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the amount of Rs.38,95,000/- was received by the petitioner in his professional capacity as a recovery agent through regular banking channels. He further submits that the said amount represents transactions arising out of recovery related work and was not obtained by the petitioner through preparation or use of any forged document. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner may 2026:JHHC:9383 --2-- A.B.A. No. 1189 of 2026 kindly be granted anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner is the beneficiary of withdrawal of amount on forge advice and in view of that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. From the FIR, it transpires that allegations are there against the petitioner that on the basis of forged advice payment has been made to enterprises including the petitioner. Prima facie a sum of Rs.38,95,000/- received on account of recovery agent appears to be exaggerated. 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 02.04.2026 Sangam/