Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8470 (JHR)

MANISH CHAND DAS ALIAS MANISH KUMAR DAS v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./924/2026 · 2026-02-18

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[ 2026:JHHC:4754] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 924 of 2026 Manish Chand Das @ Manish Kumar Das, aged about 30 years, S/O Manikchandra Das, R/O Village- Ektara, P.O.- Kuba, P.S.- Chatra, District- Chatra. ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Pallava, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. ------ 04/ 18.02.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned P.P for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Kandi P.S. Case No. 56 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Garhwa. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He next submits that it has been alleged that the petitioner being the Branch Manager of Spandana Sphurti Financial Limited Company at Kandi Branch has accepted Rs. 5,58,376/- collected from different consumers, however, the same has not been deposited in the account of the said company. He then submits that the petitioner has already been dismissed from service and further there is delay in lodging of the FIR. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioner. 4. Learned P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that there is direct allegation of collecting the money and not deposited in the bank account of Spandana Sphurti Financial Limited Company. [ 2026:JHHC:4754] -2- 5. Considering that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of misappropriation of Rs. 5,58,376/- of different consumers and the petitioner has not deposited the same in the account of the aforementioned company, 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:-18.02.2026 Amitesh/-