2025:JHHC:11865 -: 1 :- A.B.A. No. 3565 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3565 of 2024 ---- Sukhdeo Oraon @ Sukhdeo Lakra S/o Late Jharia Oraon, R/o Village Gadhgaon, PO Gadhgaon, PS Itki, Dist Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Petitioner -versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Manohari Tirki W/o Late Somchand Oraon, R/o Village Gadhgaon, PO Gadhgaon, PS Itki, Dist Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate For the Opp. Parties: Ms. Mahua Palit, APP Ms. Shalini Kumari, Advocate Ms. Pinki Kumari, Advocate ---- 9/ 21.04.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State as also learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2. 2. Through this anticipatory bail application, the petitioner, apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1574 of 2016 for allegedly committing offences under Sections 302, 364, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, later on cognizance has been taken under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ranchi, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the informant. He submits that the petitioner is a respectable person and there is no chance of his absconding. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has lodged the complaint merely on suspicion and presumption. He submits that the allegation regarding misappropriation of the compensation amount, which the husband of the complainant had received in lieu of land acquisition, is completely misconceived, inasmuch as the said amount is lying as Fixed Deposit with the bank. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State as also the counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. They submit that three of the similar co-accused had moved for grant of anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 1874 of 2021 and their prayer for bail was rejected by this Court. 2025:JHHC:11865 -: 2 :- A.B.A. No. 3565 of 2024 5. I have gone through the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in A.B.A. No.1874 of 2021. I find that the Coordinate Bench considering the nature of the allegation and considering that there is requirement of custodial interrogation during investigation of this case has rejected the prayer for bail of the co-accused persons. It is necessary to quote the operative portion of the order dated 12.04.2021 passed in A.B.A. No.1874 of 2021, which reads as under: - Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners as well as the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the above named petitioners is rejected. 6. Admittedly, this case arises out of complaint petition, wherein cognizance has already been taken. In a case which arises out of a complaint petition and has not been sent to police for registering a First Information Report, there is no question of any investigation. Further, when cognizance has already been taken, there is no scope of any investigation. Thus, the finding and observations made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court that there is requirement of custodial investigation does not match with the facts of this case. 7. Considering the nature of allegations and the fact that cognizance has already been taken, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner, named above, is directed to surrender before the Court below within four weeks from today and in the event of his surrender and/or arrest, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 1574 of 2016, subject to the condition that one of the bailers of the petitioner should be a close relative of the petitioner and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his own name or in the name of his ancestors in which he is having share and to that effect, he has to file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating his share in the property. 9. This anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, allowed. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03