Annu Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with CID Case No.06 of 2026, for the alleged offences registered under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 66 read with 43(a)(b) (d) (g) (h) (i) (j) and 66 (C)(D) of the I.T. Act, pending in the Court of learned A.J.C.-XVIII-cum-Special Judge, CID at Ranchi.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged deposition of Rs.3.15 crores from Bokaro Treasury over a period of twenty months from the salary head of a Sub-Inspector of Police, namely, Upendra Singh. He submits that all these acts have been done by the husband of the petitioner. The husband has opened a bank account in the name of the petitioner, in which the money has been transferred, and thereafter, the said amount has been transferred to the husband of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the allegation is also of a benami transaction. Further, he submits that the petitioner is the mother of a newborn baby.

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner happens to be the wife of Kaushal Kumar Pandey, who, along with his wife, was operating the said account and has siphoned off the amount from the salary head of the Bokaro Treasury of the Police Department, and more than Rs.3.15 crores has been deposited in the bank account of the petitioner.

From perusal of the FIR, it appears that the petitioner happens to be the wife of Kaushal Kumar Pandey, and a serious allegation has been made regarding the deposit of an amount of Rs.3.15 crores, drawn from the salary head of the Treasury of the Police Department, Bokaro.

In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.