[ 2026:JHHC:7800] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 119 of 2026 Vivek Ranjan, s/o Shri Suresh Kumar Srivastava, aged 35 years, r/o Near Bimal Awasiya School, Purnea, PO, PS & District Purnea (Bihar). ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Kumar Pawan, A.C. to S.C.(M)-III. ------ 03/ 19.03.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned P.P for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 139 of 2024, registered for the offence under Section 316(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Dumka. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happened to be the Branch Manager of Indian Bank, Basukinath Branch and it has been alleged that without consent of the petitioner, he has transferred certain amount in the joint account of his father and mother. He next submits that the said amount has already been returned and that has been credited in the account of the consumers. He further submits that a supplementary affidavit has been filed and annexure-3 series thereof show that the transferred amount has already been returned. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that in the case diary it has come that the petitioner used to transfer the amount in the joint account of his father and mother and when the complaint has been received by the zonal office, the petitioner has returned the said amount to the said customer. [ 2026:JHHC:7800] -2- 5. It transpires that the allegations are there against the petitioner of transferring the amount of the customer in absence of any voucher in the joint account of his father and mother and when the complaint was received in the zonal office of the Bank, the amount was returned. 6. In course of argument, it has been pointed out that prior to lodging of the FIR also, transaction took place between three of the consumers and the joint account of the father and mother of this petitioner in absence of any authority. The petitioner, being the Branch Manager of the concerned Branch, his integrity is required to be par excellence. 7. In the attending 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:-19.03.2026 Amitesh/-