Dismissed

Md. Ersad Alam @ Md. Irshad Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Sept 2026A.B.A./4262/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Jharkhand High Court rejected anticipatory bail applications of two petitioners accused of misappropriating government scheme funds totaling Rs.23,23,000. The court found specific allegations supported by case diary entries showing illegal transfer of Rs.7,13,000 to petitioner 1 and Rs.17,00,000 to petitioner 2, and noted the entire amount was paid in one day violating financial rules.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail rejected for both petitioners

Md. Ersad Alam @ Md. Irshad Alam Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:27998

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4262 of 2026

¶3

----

¶4

1. Md. Ersad Alam @ Md. Irshad Alam, aged about 43 years, S/o Md. Shamshad, resident of village- Bhikhrajpur, PO – Baliapur, PS – Baliapur, District – Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶5

2. Najiya Parween, aged about 38 years, W/o Md. Irshad Alam, resident of village – Bhikhrajpur, PO – Baliapur, PS – Baliapur, District – Dhanbad, Jharkhand .... Petitioners

¶6

-- Versus --

¶7

The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶10

For the Petitioners :- Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate For the State :- Shree Prakash Jha, Advocate :- Mrs. Malsi Pathak, Advocate ----

¶11

/16.09.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well

¶12

as the learned counsel appearing for the State.

¶13

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Baliapur P.S. Case No.104 of 2024 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhanbad.

¶14

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and the allegations are made of misappropriating the amount of scheme is not correct. He further submits that in fact the petitioner No.1 is a petty contractor and he has lodged the case against the informant,

¶15

--1--

¶16

A.B.A. No. 4262 of 2026

¶17

2026:JHHC:27998

¶18

who happened to be BDO before the ACB and ACB has registered the case and in view of that in retaliation false case has been lodged against the petitioners. He then submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted.

¶19

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that petitioner No.1 has misappropriated a sum of Rs.7,13,000/and petitioner No.2 has misappropriated Rs.17,00,000/- and illegally they have taken the amount of the government scheme. He further submits that the witnesses have supported the case in the case diary and further in paragraph No.140 of the case diary it has specifically come that in what manner the amount has been transferred in the account of petitioner No.1. He then submits that petitioner No.2 is wife of petitioner No.1. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.

¶20

5. It is alleged that on enquiry for the financial year of 202223 and 2023-24 relating to 11 schemes Rs.23,23,000/- was paid to petitioner No.1 and it has been further alleged that waiving the rule of the financial transaction in one day the entire amount has been paid and even it is alleged that for many schemes without proper measurement the amount has been released and the amount has been transferred in the account of middleman and computer operator. It has been alleged that Rs.7,13,000/- has been

¶21

--2-- A.B.A. No. 4262 of 2026

¶22

2026:JHHC:27998

¶23

transferred illegally in the account of petitioner No.1 and Rs.17,00,000/- in the account of petitioner No.2 and that is also fortified in paragraph No.140 of the case diary. In page No.26 of the case diary name of the petitioner appeared and it has further alleged that the amount has been transferred in the account of the broker.

¶24

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.

¶25

Dated 16.09.2026 Sangam/

¶26

--3--

¶27

A.B.A. No. 4262 of 2026

Md. Ersad Alam @ Md. Irshad Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Ersad Alam @ Md. Irshad Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases