Disposed

Bijay Samuel Minz v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Sept 2026A.B.A./5130/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In ABA No. 5130 of 2026, the High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to Bijay Samuel Minz pending in Angara P.S. Case No. 52 of 2023, directing his surrender within three weeks subject to standard bail conditions and following coordination with similar grants to co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender within three weeks to secure bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties.

Bijay Samuel Minz Vs State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:27611

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5130 of 2026

¶3

----

¶4

Bijay Samuel Minz, aged about 46 years, S/o Jona Minz, R/o Shantipur Dibadih, Doranda, near Railway Bridge, PO and PS – Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand, 834002

¶5

.... Petitioner

¶6

-- Versus --

¶7

1. The State of Jharkhand

¶8

2. Sandhya Devi, aged about 42, years, W/o Late Puswa Munda, R/o village – Bondeepa, PO and PS – Angara, District - Ranchi

¶9

.... Opposite Parties

¶10

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --For the Petitioner :- Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, Advocate

¶12

¶13

02 /14.09.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the State.

¶14

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Angara P.S. Case No.52 of 2023, for the alleged offences registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 34 of Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned J.M. at Ranchi.

¶15

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in identical situation two of the co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in ABA No.5029 of 2024. He further submits that the petitioner is having a farm near the house of the informant and there were transactions regarding cattles and pig between them and in view of that a sum of Rs.1 lac has been transferred in the account of the petitioner through UPI. He then submits

¶16

--1--

¶17

A.B.A. No. 5130 of 2026

¶18

2026:JHHC:27611

¶19

that the petitioner has complied the notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted.

¶20

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that allegations are there of embezzlement of Rs.5,38,000/- and Rs.6,88,000/-.

¶21

5. Considering that the said amount has been transferred in the account of Sohan Munda and Shiv Narayan Munda and they have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in ABA No.4054 of 2025 and Rs.1 lac has been transferred in the account of the petitioner through UPI and it has been pointed out that there were business transaction relating to poultry and pig and another co-accused, who was the Branch Manager of HDFC Banh, has also been granted anticipatory bail in ABA No.5029 of 2024, I am inclined to provide anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶22

6. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is hereby directed to surrender before the learned Court within three weeks from today, and in the event of his surrender/arrest, the petitioner, above named, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned J.M. at Ranchi in connection with Angara P.S. Case No.52 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶23

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶24

Dated 14.09.2026 Sangam/

¶25

--2--

¶26

A.B.A. No. 5130 of 2026

Bijay Samuel Minz v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijay Samuel Minz v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases