Shivaji Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1973 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Shivaji Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ... on 16 March, 2026

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                                2026:JHHC:6928



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                         A.B.A. No. 1015 of 2026
                                    ----

Shivaji Prasad, son of late Bacha Lal Verma, aged about 49 years, resident of H.No.2594 /DT, HEC Colony, Near Panchwati Maidan, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand .... Petitioner

-- Versus --

The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Madhav Prasad, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, APP

----

2/16.03.2026 Heard learned counsels for petitioner and for State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection

with Dhurwa P.S. Case No.39 of 2025, for offence registered under

section 318(4), 316(2), 351(1), 352, 74, 61 of BNS, 2023, pending

in court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and the money in

question has not been transferred in the account of the petitioner.

He next submits that the allegations are made of syphoning away

Rs.65,80,000/- of the informant which was the retiral benefits of the

informant and on this ground he submits that the anticipatory bail

may kindly be granted.

4. Learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that this

petitioner has introduced the informant to invest the retiral benefits

saying that 10% interest per month will be provided to the

2026:JHHC:6928

informant and for that the petitioner has also taken guarantee and

even stated that if the amount will not be released, the petitioner

will return the amount by way of selling his flat which has been

stated in the FIR itself and on this ground, he submits that

anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.

5. The petitioner and the co-accused have fraudulently

induced the informant and cheated a huge amount of retiral

benefits of the informant to the tune of Rs.65,80,000/- and the

petitioner took guarantee and even stated that if the amount will

not be returned, he will return the same by way of selling his flat.

There is direct allegation of inducement against the petitioner, and

as such, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner

and hence, this anticipatory bail application being A.B.A. No.1015 of

2026 is, hereby, dismissed.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 16.03.2026 SI/