IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3421 of 2024 ------ Sanjay Yadav, aged 30 years, S/o Raju Yadav, Resident and village –Manan Chotag, P.O. & P.S. –Latehar, District – Latehar. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mangal Sao, aged about 41 years, S/o Samodhi Saw, R/o Village Kukurmuka, P.O.+P.S. –Balumath, District – Latehar. … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rahul, Advocate ------ Order No.05 Dated- 11.02.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No.174 of 2023 registered under sections 420/ 467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner collected Rs.3,45,000/- from the informant in respect of supplying a tractor to the informant and the tractor has been supplied to the informant physically but the documents of the tractor has not been handed over to the informant on the ground that the petitioner has not paid Rs.1,49,000/- collected form the informant to the owner of the showroom through his employees, including the petitioner. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to page no. 31 of the brief which is the copy of the bank account of another employee of the said showroom namely Dilip Yadav, that they informant has transferred Rs.1,50,000/- to the account of Dilip Yadav but as Dilip Yadav without depositing the same died during the COVID-19 Pandemic, hence the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties is at best a civil dispute and there is no allegation against the petitioner of playing any deception since the beginning of the transaction. It is next submitted that there is no allegation of any dishonest misappropriation of any property by the petitioner. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to furnish sufficient security including cash security and also undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on depositing cash security of Rs.10,000/- and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Latehar, in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No.174 of 2023 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-