Rakesh Kumar Mahato vs. The State Of Jharkhand
Facts
The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Mahato, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Baliapur PS Case No. 103 of 2024, registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations stem from his employment as an Accounting Clerk cum Computer Operator under the 15th Financial Commission in Baliapur Block. An inquiry revealed that A.M. Enterprises, run by the petitioner's wife, Uma Mahto, along with his brother and sister-in-law, operated as vendors/suppliers. This establishment received Rs. 19 lacs in the financial years 2023-24 and was later banned for non-payment of GST and royalty. Further allegations include the transfer of Rs. 5.58 lacs from A.M. Enterprises to the petitioner's personal account, and a total of Rs. 44 lacs of government funds from the 15th Finance Commission schemes to his personal account. Fake vouchers, not approved by competent authorities, were allegedly used for these transfers. Witnesses in the case diary reportedly support the allegations against the petitioner.
Held
The Court rejected the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail. The Court considered the serious allegations against the petitioner, including the misappropriation of government funds amounting to Rs. 44 lacs from the 15th Finance Commission schemes and the use of fake vouchers for transfers. The Court noted that witnesses in the case diary supported the case against the petitioner. Given the gravity of the allegations and the findings of the inquiry, the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with Baliapur PS Case No. 103 of 2024, registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 406/34 of the IPC, considering the serious allegations of misappropriation of government funds and the use of fake vouchers? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argues that he is ready to cooperate with the investigation and that the allegations are false. He claims to have already replied to the notice issued under Section 41-A Cr.PC and asserts that the documents are not fake. Based on these grounds, he seeks anticipatory bail. State's Contentions: The State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail, citing serious allegations of misappropriating a sum of Rs. 63 lacs against the petitioner. The State contends that in view of these grave charges, the anticipatory bail application should be rejected.
Sections Cited
Section 41-A Cr.PC, Section 467 IPC, Section 468 IPC, Section 471 IPC, Section 420 IPC, Section 406 IPC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026:JHHC:19232 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
A.B.A. No. 3456 of 2026
---- Rakesh Kumar Mahato, aged about 34 years, son of Anand Mahato, resident of Paharigora, PO Khas Jeenagora, PS- Baliarpur (Alakdiha O.P.), District Dhanbad, Jharkhand
.... Petitioner -- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand
.... Opposite Party
---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
For the State
:- Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
---- 2/01.07.2026 Heard learned counsels for petitioner and for State.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Baliapur PS Case No.103 of 2024, for offence registered under section 467, 468, 471, 420, 406/34 of IPC, pending in court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation and the allegations are false and the p
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.