MAN MOHAN FADRIK KISKU @ MANMOHAN FRADRIK KISKU @ MANMOHAN FADRIK KISKU @ MANMOHAN FREDRICK KISKU v. STATE OF JHARKHAND
A.B.A./884/2026 · 2026-02-17
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 8266 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 8266 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:4492 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ABA No.884 of 2026
Man Mohan Fadrik Kisku @ Manmohan Fradrik Kisku @ Manmohan Fadrik Kisku @ Manmohan Fredrick Kisku, aged about 45 years, son of Shekhar Kisku, resident of Sangarampur, Kaswa, Ρ.Ο.- Mangalhat, P.S.-Rajmahal, District- Sahibganj.
…. Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand
… Opp. Party
--------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the State
: Mr. P.D. Agarwal, Spl. PP ------
2/17.02.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest arrested in connection with Mirzachouki P.S. Case No. 47 of 2025, registered under Sections 316(5), 319(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. Act, 2023, pending in the Court of Learned S.D.J.M. at Sahibganj.
3.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner was working as Assistant Godown Manager and the allegations are made that 1275.29 quintals of grain have been embezzled. He also submits that the petitioner has taken the charge from one Bablu Tudu and he has not handed over the stock position to the petitioner.
4.
Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer
2026:JHHC:4492 2
and submits that the said grain is amounting to the tune of Rs. 4809617/-
5. In the FIR, the allegation is there against Babloo Tudu and petitioner have misappropriated the food grain of 1275.29 quintal to the tune of Rs.4809617/- and the petitioner was working as Assistant Godown Manager and there is direct allegation against him for not maintaining the government record. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 17.02.2026 R.Kumar