[2025:JHHC:10716] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 3690 of 2024 Dr. Rajarshi Bhushan @ Dr Rajshree Bhushan, aged about 39 years, son of Sri Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh, resident of Flat no. GK 1, Hirak Square, Memco More, P.O. Barwadda, P.S. Barwadda, District-Dhanbad … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … opp. party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv. Mr. Nishant Roy, Adv. For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl. PP. For the informant : Mr. P.P.N.Roy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Radhey Shyam Goswami, Adv. Mr. Deepak Sahu, Adv. 08 / 07.04.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Saraidhela P.S. Case No. 227 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 120B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the power of attorney holder of the owner of the land namely Dhiraj Kr. Singh, has taken Rs. 1,56,10,000/- from the informant, by way of cheating and by suppressing material fact that the owner of the land namely Dhiraj Kr. Singh, was not having any right, title and interest in respect of the land for which, the sale deed has been executed by the petitioner in capacity of the power of attorney holder of the co-accused Dhiraj Kr. Singh, in favour of the petitioner. There is also allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, has committed forgery by preparing a false document by getting a sale deed purportedly executed by Anant Deo Chandra on 12.03.2018 in favour of Dhiraj Kr. Singh even though Anant Deo Chandra died before 12.03.2018. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is only the power of attorney holder of the co-accused whose anticipatory bail has already been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 22.02.2024 passed in ABA no. 3435 of 2023. It is next submitted that the petitioner has already paid Rs. 80,00,000/- to the co-accused Dhiraj Kr. Singh, after verifying the details of the landed property. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as mentioned in paragraph 15 of the anticipatory bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Spl. PP and learned senior counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submit that in view of serious allegation against the petitioner of committing forgery and cheating involving crores of rupees, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during investigation of the case to find out the details of the forgery and recovery of the cheated amount. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-