The Jharkhand High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused of allegedly siphoning off approximately ₹63 lakh of government funds earmarked under the 15th Finance Commission schemes, holding that the allegations are serious and supported by witness statements and documentary material collected during the investigation. 

The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, while dismissing the anticipatory bail application, observed that the case diary contains substantial material indicating the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged financial irregularities, making it inappropriate to extend the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. 

Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026

The petitioner/assessee had approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail registered for offences under Sections 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for cheating), 471 (using forged documents), 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter is pending before the Judicial Magistrate at Dhanbad. 

Before the Court, the petitioner argued that the allegations were false, that he had cooperated with the investigation, and had already responded to the notice issued under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was further contended that the documents relied upon by the prosecution were genuine and that no custodial interrogation was warranted. 

The State opposed the plea, emphasizing that the allegations involve misappropriation of public money amounting to ₹63 lakh, warranting denial of anticipatory bail. 

According to the prosecution, the petitioner was working as an Accounting Clerk-cum-Computer Operator under the 15th Finance Commission in the Baliapur Block.

During the departmental enquiry, investigators allegedly discovered that A.M. Enterprises, operated by the petitioner’s wife, along with the petitioner’s brother and sister-in-law, functioned as vendors and suppliers under various government schemes. The enquiry reportedly found that nearly ₹19 lakh was paid into the firm’s bank account during the financial year 2023–24. The establishment was later allegedly barred after failing to deposit statutory dues such as GST and royalty. 

The investigation further alleges that ₹5.58 lakh was transferred from the account of A.M. Enterprises to the petitioner’s personal bank account. Around ₹44 lakh meant for various schemes under the 15th Finance Commission was transferred directly into the petitioner’s personal account. Government funds intended for beneficiaries were allegedly diverted into the petitioner’s account. Several vouchers used for transferring the funds were allegedly forged, while many were not approved by the competent authority before payments were processed. 

The High Court noted that the prosecution had referred to multiple paragraphs of the case diary, including paragraphs 3, 18, 25, 26, 27, 28, 36, and 59, where witnesses had allegedly supported the prosecution’s version of events.

Considering the gravity of the accusations, the alleged diversion of government funds, and the supporting material collected during the investigation, the Court held that it was not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner. 

Concluding that the allegations disclose a serious economic offence involving public funds and that the investigation has produced prima facie supporting evidence, the High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, leaving the petitioner to face the investigation and further proceedings in accordance with law. 

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Vijayawada DGGI | Separate Proceedings Required for Each Tax Period: AP HC Quashes Composite GST SCN