Jasimuddin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2026)

Jasimuddin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Pirtand P.S. Case No.26 of 2025 (registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61, 352 and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Giridih.

Court's answer

In weighing the anticipatory bail prayer, the court took into account the allegations that the petitioners misappropriated the amount of Rs. 22,06,000/- by way of duping and that they used to take money and handover the cheque, with the cheques not being honoured subsequently.

Ratio / Principle

The court further took into account that petitioner No.1 is having eight criminal antecedents, which, per the court, has come in the order of learned Sessions Judge.

Key takeaways

In the attending facts and circumstances, the author-judge declared himself not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and accordingly rejected their prayer for anticipatory bail.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ANTICIPATORY BAIL – PRAYER REJECTED – High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi – A.B.A. No. 1483 of 2026 – decided 09.04.2026 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi (single judge, author). Petitioners Jasimuddin Ansari, Mujahid Ansari @ Md. Muzahid Alam and Jahid Ansari, apprehending arrest in connection with Pirtand P.S. Case No.26 of 2025 registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61, 352 and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Giridih, sought anticipatory bail. Their counsel urged false implication, pointing to a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case the petitioners claim to have lodged against the informant. Counsel for the State and for the Informant jointly opposed the prayer, alleging a modus operandi of cheating innocent persons by taking money, providing cheques and not returning the money, and citing eight criminal antecedents of the same nature. Considering the alleged misappropriation of Rs. 22,06,000/- by way of duping, that monies were taken against cheques which were subsequently dishonoured, and that petitioner No.1 has eight criminal antecedents as reflected in the order of learned Sessions Judge, the court found itself 'not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners' and rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail.

2026:JHHC:10284

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1483 of 2026

----

1. Jasimuddin Ansari, aged about 52 years, S/o Chhotu Miyan

2. Mujahid Ansari @ Md. Muzahid Alam, aged about 31 years

3. Jahid Ansari, aged about 29 years, both are s/o Jasimuddin Ansari

All are R/o village – Surhi, Eidgah Mohalla, near Pani Tanki, PO

– Surhi, PS – Nawadih, District – Bokaro, Jharkhand

.... Petitioners

-- Versus --

The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

For the Petitioners :- Md. Sajid Yunus, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Bandana Sinha, Advocate For the Informant :- Mr. Sanket Ranjan, Advocate ----

02 /09.04.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the Informant through V.C.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Pirtand P.S. Case No.26 of 2025 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61, 352 and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Giridih.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioners have lodged the case under Section 138 of Negotiable

--1--

A.B.A. No. 1483 of 2026

2026:JHHC:10284

Instruments Act against the informant and thereafter the present case has been lodged. On this ground, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the Informant through V.C. jointly opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner has a modus operandi of cheating innocent persons by taking money and providing the cheque and not to return the money and the petitioners are having eight criminal antecedents of the same nature.

5. Considering that allegations are there against the petitioners of misappropriating the amount of Rs.22,06,000/- by way of duping and they used to take money and handover the cheque, however, the cheques are not being honoured subsequently and petitioner No.1 is having eight criminal antecedents and that has come in the order of learned Sessions Judge.

6. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Dated 09.04.2026 Sangam/

--2--

A.B.A. No. 1483 of 2026