Krishna Mishra @ Krishna Chand Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 966 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Krishna Mishra @ Krishna Chand Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ... on 10 February, 2026

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                           2026:JHHC:3483


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                     ----

A.B.A. No. 6743 of 2025

----

Krishna Mishra @ Krishna Chand Mishra, aged about 53 years son of Murli Mishra, resident of Village Tatri, PO and PS Jaridih, District Bokaro, Jharkhand .... Petitioner

-- Versus --

The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 146 of 2026

----

Sakil Ansari, aged about 35 years, son of Naim Ansari, resident of Jarwa, PO, PS-Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand .... Petitioner

-- Versus --

The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Gajendra Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Achinto Sen, Advocate Ms Mahua Palit, Advocate

----

2/10.02.2026 Heard learned counsels for petitioners and for State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in

connection with Masalia P.S. Case No.18 of 2022, corresponding to

GR Case No.486 of 2022, for offence registered under section 419,

420, 467, 406 and 34 of IPC, pending in court of learned Sub-

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners, appearing in their

respective cases, submit that the petitioners have been falsely

implicated in this case. They submit that the vehicle in question was

hypothecated with the Bank and it was on loan, and in view of that,

2026:JHHC:3483

the transaction of selling the said vehicle is not taken effect and, on

these grounds, they submit that anticipatory bail of the petitioners

may kindly be allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the State appearing in respective cases

oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail and submit that connivance

is there of taking money and that too on the basis of the vehicle

which was already hypothecated with the Bank.

5. Considering that the said vehicle was already

hypothecated with the Bank and for selling of the said vehicle, the

amount was taken by these petitioners, and as such, I am not

inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners.

6. As such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is,

hereby, rejected and hence, both these anticipatory bail applications

being A.B.A. No.6743 of 2025 and A.B.A. No.146 of 2026 are,

hereby, dismissed.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 10.02.2026 SI/