Dismissed

Md. Azharuddin v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Sept 2026A.B.A./4518/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand rejected an application for anticipatory bail filed by the director and deputy director of a recovery agency. They were charged with offences under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita for failing to produce a seized vehicle to the bank client after the bank authorized its recovery.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners rejected.

Md. Azharuddin Vs the State of Jharkhand — Money Laundering | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:27352

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4415 of 2026

¶3

------

¶4

Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, age 39 years, son of Chand Keshwar Mishra, resident of Village Dumardaga Sainik Colony, H. No.250, P.O. Buti, P.S. Khelgaon, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶5

.... .... …. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party

¶8

With

¶9

A.B.A. No. 4518 of 2026

¶10

------

¶11

Md. Azharuddin, aged 32 years, son of Md. Isha Shaikh, resident of Village Raghunandanpur, Chanchki, Prithi Nagar, P.O. Prithi Nagar, P.S. Town Thana Pakur, District Pakur, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State of Jharkhand

¶14

.... .... .... Opposite Party

¶15

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶16

For the Petitioners : Mr. Anish Kumar Pandey, Advocate (In both cases) For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. (In A.B.A. No.4415 of 2026) Ms. Bandana Sinha, A.P.P. (In A.B.A. No.4518 of 2026)

¶17

------

¶18

08/11.09.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

¶19

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Chowka P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 314, 318(4) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandil.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and the petitioners are the Director and Deputy Director of M/s Softdeal Professional Services Pvt. Ltd. He submits that the petitioners are appointed as Recovery Agent and the vehicle has been seized by one of the employee of these petitioners namely Gulab Jha and mischief has been done by Gulab Jha. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioners.

¶21

2026:JHHC:27352

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioners are the appointed Agent of the Bank and in spite of seizing of the vehicle from the consumer, the vehicle has not been produced to the Bank. He submits that the petitioners are involved in the said crime and in view of that prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.

¶23

On perusal of the FIR, it transpires that the Branch Manager, Jharkhand Rajaya Gramin Bank, Khunti Branch has lodged the case alleging that Tata Dumper/Tipper was given on loan to Rambilas Lohar and coborrower Pradhan Mahato and the said vehicle was mortgaged with the Bank and due to non-payment of EMI, the vehicle was ordered to be recovered and the seizure order for recovery was released by Jharkhand Rajaya Gramin Bank, Khunti Branch to its authorized recovery agency M/s Softdeal Professional Services Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioners are the Director and Deputy Director respectively of the said M/s Softdeal Professional Services Pvt. Ltd. and on several requests made by the Bank to provide the dumper, it was not provided while the dumper was seized on 12.12.2023. In para 8 of the case diary, the witness, Branch Manager of Jharkhand Rajaya Gramin Bank, Khunti Branch has stated that Softdeal Professional Services Pvt. Ltd. has seized the said vehicle on 12.12.2023 and submitted the seizure list, however, the vehicle has not been produced and the witness in para 14 of the case diary has also stated the same, in the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶24

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners, is hereby, rejected.

¶25

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J . )

¶26

Dated 11.09.2026 Anit

¶27

Uploaded 15.09.2026

Md. Azharuddin v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Azharuddin 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