2025:JHHC:16338 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3133 of 2025 ----- Rohit Kumar, S/o Sumant Kumar, R/o E/7 Ramdas Dayal City, Govindpur, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District East Singhbhum, Town Jamshedpur, Jharkhand .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devesh Ajmani, Advocate For the State : Mr. F. Allam, AddI. P.P. Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. …...... 04/ 19.06.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Sector 12 P.S. Case No. 33 of 2021, for offences under Sections 420/406/ 467/ 468/469 /34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case is presently pending before the Court of Learned J.M. 1st class, Bokaro. 3. It is alleged that while the informant was in Bangalore, he came in contact with Rohit Kumar, who promised to get him a job in the Railways. Rohit Kumar took him to Delhi at D.R.M. Office and got deposited all his certificates and got him fill out a form, and claimed the job will be confirmed. The informant also paid Rs.5,00,000 to Rohit Kumar by borrowing money from friends and family. Not only the informant, some other persons also gave money to Rohit Kumar for job. Rohit Kumar gave him Railway I.D. card and appointment letter. Later on, the informant found out that the appointment letter and Railway I.D. card given to him were fake. When he asked for his money back, Rohit Kumar and his father threatened to kill him. Rohit Kumar even transferred some amount faking it to be salary. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is completely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner and the informant were roommates in Bangalore. They shared rent and daily expenses, and the informant would send his share of the money to the petitioner’s bank account each month. He further submits that the informant asked the petitioner to allow some of his business money to be routed through the petitioner’s bank account to reduce his tax burden. He further submits that all the money received was either for shared expenses or for this tax-saving arrangement. He also submits that the FIR does not include any proof—like a job letter, ID card, or salary slip—showing he forged railway documents or gave any to the informant. 5. The learned A.P.P appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail. He further submits that the witnesses in paragraphs 5, 6, 53 and 57 of the case-diary have supported allegation against the petitioner. As per him there is evidence of money transaction. 6. After hearing the parties, I find that there is allegation against the petitioner. At paras 5, 6, 53 and 57 of the case-diary the witnesses, who were the victim also have supported the allegation of the informant against the petitioner. Further there is evidence of transaction of money in account of petitioner. Considering the supporting material on record, I find that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Presence of the petitioner is necessary during investigation. He needs to be questioned about transactions also. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner in connection with Sector 12 P.S. Case No.33 of 2021, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro, stands rejected. 7. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./