2025:JHHC:24070 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 4482 of 2025 Mahlaqua Akbar, age 36 years, old wife of Ali Quraishi, resident of village Sahibganj Town, P.O.+P.S. – Sahibganj Nagar, District – Sahibganj ….. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The state of Jharkhand 2. Milan Mandal, son of Prem Lal Mandal, resident of Village Labari, P.O. & P.S. – Barhet, District – Sahibganj ..... … Opp. Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Sweta Singh, A P.P. ------ 06/18.08.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner through V.C. and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 362/2023, for the alleged offences registered under Sections 420 of IPC and Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending in the Court of learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case has been registered under Section 420 of IPC and under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. 4. He further submits that the cheque has been dishonoured which was post-dated and the learned Court, in spite of that, has taken cognizance under Section 420 of IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the anticipatory application is misconceived in view of the 2025:JHHC:24070 observation made by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. Looking into the direction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, it transpires that the learned Sessions Judge has taken care of the allegation and in view of that he has been pleased to direct the petitioner to move before the learned Trial Court by way of appearance and pray for bail. Learned Court has also indicated that the decision has to be taken in the light of Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the High Court. In view of the above, there is clear indication of the intention of the learned Sessions Judge to grant the bail. 7. In view of the above, no interference is required. 8. In view of that, this Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) R.Kumar