Jharkhand High Court
A.B.A./5480/2026 of RUSTAM ANSARI Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND on 30 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.5480 of 2026 ------ Rustam Ansari, aged about 30 years, son of Md. Safik Ansari, resident of Village Ramsagar, P.O. Fulang, P.S. Lesliganj, District Palamau (Jharkhand) .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
[2026:JHHC:29429] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.5480 of 2026
------ Rustam Ansari, aged about 30 years, son of Md. Safik Ansari, resident of Village Ramsagar, P.O. Fulang, P.S. Lesliganj, District Palamau (Jharkhand) .... .... …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Dubey, Advocate
Ms. Rakhi Kumari, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, Addl.P.P.
------ Order No:-02 Dated:-30-09-2026
Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No.124 of 2025 instituted under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 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 took Rs.64,200/- from the informant by assuring him to return the same within 15 days but did not return the same. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that assuming for the sake of argument that the allegations are true, still the offences at best make out a civil dispute. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-18 of the instant Anticipatory Bail Application. It is further submitted that the informant has paid only part of the amount due to him to be payable to the petitioner of Rs.2,61,150/- regarding the outstanding wages. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and to furnish sufficient security including cash security. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner also undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the informant of the case or any of his family members in any manner during the pendency of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within three weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Latehar in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No.124 of 2025 with the condition that he will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and he will not annoy or disturb the informant of the case or any of his family members in any manner during the pendency of the case and further conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:-30.09.2026 Saroj/