A.B.A./5509/2026 of JOY EMMANUEL EKKA Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND on 1 October 2026

[2026:JHHC:29564] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

A.B.A. No.5509 of 2026

------ Joy Emmanuel Ekka, aged about 50 years, S/o – Bhanu Darshan Ekka, R/o – House No. 351/A3, Dhumsa Toli, Church Road East, VTC, Chutiya, P.O. – Chutiya SO, P.S. – Chutiya, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand 834001 .... .... …. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

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

------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Subhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate

Ms. Mrinalini Adela Tete, Advocate

Ms. Singi Sharon Demta, Advocate

Ms. Shobha G. Lakra, Advocate For the State

: Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.P.P.

------ Order No:-02 Dated:-01-10-2026

Heard the parties.

Apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R. Jasidih P.S. Case No.25 of 2023 registered under Sections 409, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, being the Manager (Depot) of the Food Corporation of India in the capacity of public servant entrusted with the property of rice and wheat, has misappropriated 188 bags of food-grains and also cheated the Food Corporation of India in furtherance of common intention with the co- accused persons. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pradip N. Sharma vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 457, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in para-18 thereof, the well settled principle of law has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that anticipatory bail can be granted where custodial interrogation is not essential, particularly in cases where the allegations hinge on official records and the presence of the accused can be secured without pre-trial detention. It is further submitted that this is a case where custodial interrogation is not required; hence, the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case and to furnish sufficient security including cash security. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the misappropriation of 188 bags of food-grains, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case for recovery of the same and also to find out the details of the manner in which the same has been misappropriated. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of misappropriating huge amount of food-grains of the Food Corporation of India and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the above-named petitioner.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above- named petitioner is rejected.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:-01.10.2026 Saroj/