Dismissed¶5

Shivaji Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Mar 2026A.B.A./1015/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Finding a direct allegation of inducement against the petitioner — who, with a co-accused, is alleged to have fraudulently induced the informant and cheated retiral benefits of Rs.65,80,000/-, took guarantee and offered to sell his flat if the amount was not returned — the court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. ¶5

Shivaji Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:6928

¶2

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

¶3

----

¶4

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

¶5

.... Petitioner

¶6

-- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --For the Petitioner :- Mr. Madhav Prasad, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, APP

¶9

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

2026:JHHC:6928

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶19

16.03.2026 SI/

¶20

Shivaji Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaji Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Turi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Aman Verma Alias Aman Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Atiqur Shekh @ Atikur Rahman Vs State of Jharkhand

Ramshankar Mallah @ Ramashankar Mallah Vs State of Jharkhand

Jamshed Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand