Jharkhand High Court
A.B.A./5128/2026 of THAKUR DAS MAHATO @ THAKUR PRASAD MAHATO Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 21 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A . B. A . No. 5128 of 2026 Thakur Das Mahato @ Thakur Prasad Mahato, son of Jagran Mahato, aged about 27 years, resident of Chandil, P.O.-Ghoraling, P.s.-Chandil, District-East Singhbhum, Pin Code-832401 ...... … Petitioner Versus The
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:28463 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 5128 of 2026
Thakur Das Mahato @ Thakur Prasad Mahato, son of Jagran Mahato, aged about 27 years, resident of Chandil, P.O.-Ghoraling, P.s.-Chandil, District-East Singhbhum, Pin Code-832401 ...... … Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner
:Mr. Abhishek Chaube, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, A.P.P.
02/ 21.09.2026: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chakulia P.S. Case No. 02 of 2025, registered under sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 340(2), 3 (5) of BNS, 2023, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that informant is neither an employee of Jharkhand State Beverage Corporation Limited nor is acting as per the direction of the Jharkhand State Beverage Corporation Limited. He next submits that the petitioner was appointed by the informant and granted contract to run shop by the Jharkhand State Beverage Corporation Limited and he has employed different persons to look after the shop. He next submits that eight accused persons are named in F.I.R and there are general and omnibus allegations of not depositing a sum of Rs. 71,64,990/- of the liquor. He next submits that it is not clear how this petitioner has fraudulently not deposited the said amount. He also submits that petitioner has got no criminal antecedent which is disclosed in para 20 of the petition. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail.
( 2026:JHHC:28463 )
4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that allegations are there of collecting the money and not depositing the same in the account.
5. On perusal of F.I.R it transpires that said allegation is made against eight of the employees who have worked in the said liquor shop for the certain period. It is not clear which of the employee has embezzled the said amount. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent which is disclosed in para 20 of the petition.
6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the above named, petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned court within three weeks from today and in the event of his surrender / arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila, in connection with Chakulia P.S. Case No. 02 of 2025, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of B.N.S.S, 2023.
Dt.21.09.2026
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-