2026:JHHC:13354 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1864 of 2026 ------ Shraban Kumar, son of Ramji Yadav, resident of Panchamhala, P.O. Mohamunda, P.S. Nalanda, District Nalanda, Bihar .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate Ms. Trishna Sagar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P. ------ 02/05.05.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 214 of 2022(S), registered for the offence under Sections 406, 420 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. She submits that the allegations are made of intoxicating the driver and taking away the truck. She next submits that investigation is still going on however, the charge sheet has been submitted against two of the accused persons and his name has come on the confessional statement. On these grounds, she submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner is not co-operating the investigation however, the charge sheet against two of the accused persons has already been submitted. He also submits that the petitioner has got criminal antecedent. 5. In the FIR, it is alleged that the petitioner along with others have intoxicated the driver and took away the truck. It has further come in para 139 of the case diary that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent. 6. Looking to the contents of the FIR, it transpires that although name of the petitioner has come on the confessional statement however, it has come in the order of learned Sessions Judge 2026:JHHC:13354 that the petitioner has got criminal antecedent and the petitioner is said to be an accomplice of the two of the accused persons, who administered intoxicant to the driver and stolen the truck, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby, rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Anit Uploaded 07.05.2026