2025:JHHC:18130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3252 of 2025 ----- Raj Kumar Choudhary, S/o Late Mahavir Prasad Choudhary, resident of G/133/A Gola Road, Ramgarh Cantt, P.O. Ramgarh, P.S. Ramgarh Cantt. & District Ramgarh .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Abhishek Abhi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, Advocate For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Nitiin Kumar Pasari, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Kaushlesh, Advocate …...... 07/ 04.07.2025: Heard, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The present anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for the offences registered under sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 379 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, presently pending in the Learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramgarh in connection with Gola P.S. Case No. 96/2024. 3. It is alleged that informant and one another who were the director of the company came in contact of the petitioner who have committed a planned fraud by falsely promising business cooperation. Through his company, Ambey Casting Pvt. Ltd., petitioner took illegal control of the informant’s factory, causing damage worth Rs.4 crore to machinery, and misused goods worth Rs.50–60 lakh. He made Rs.3.5 crore of illegal profits while paying Rs.8.5 crore bank interest, leading to a wrongful loss of Rs.16 crore. His actions also caused an additional Rs.8.25 crore in tax and GST liabilities, bringing the total loss to Rs.25 crore, along with harm to the informant’s reputation. It is also alleged that the accused and his associates threatened the informant of false legal entanglements and forceful dispossession of their factory assets. Even after the agreement was terminated, he continues to occupy the premises unlawfully. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence, and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that allegations leveled against the petitioner regarding non-payment of money and making wrongful gains by causing financial loss and damages is concocted. He further submits that the petitioner and his company were not in possession of industrial unit during the alleged period. He further submits the allegation of forgery and receiving notice from G.S.T Authorities is false and there is no evidence or any document which proves it. He further submits that the entire allegation is based on surmises and conjectures. He lastly submits that this Hon’ble High Court in an appropriate proceeding has already appointed Arbitrators to arbitrate the dispute amongst the parties. 5. The learned APP 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 petitioner was involved in violation of terms and conditions of series of agreements. He also submits that in paragraph 39 of case diary it is mentioned that inspite of notice, the petitioner did not appear before Investigating Officer, rather his learned advocate appeared to respond the notice. 6. After hearing the parties, and perusing the materials available on record, it is evident that the allegations primarily revolve around civil disputes stemming from business transactions and agreements. The dispute appears to be mainly related to breach of contract and financial dealings. There are references of several agreements and the complainant alleges breach of these agreements and alleges that the petitioner had worked beyond the terms of the agreement and has obtained undue advantage and gain putting loss to the informant. So far as the GST is concerned, I find that the instant case is not related with any of the offences under the GST Act. Further, it is an admitted case that a panel of Arbitrator has already been appointed by this Court to arbitrate the dispute between the parties. 7. Considering the nature of allegations, and the observations made above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves the protection of anticipatory bail. 8. In view of the aforesaid fact, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands allowed. The petitioner, above named, are directed to surrender before the learned court below and on the event of his surrender 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 learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramgarh in connection with Gola P.S. Case No. 96 of 2024, subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be a close relative of the petitioner and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his/her name or in the name of his/her ancestors in which he/she is having share and to that effect, he/she has to file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating his share in the property. 9. The petitioner should appear before the Investigating Officer once in every fifteen days till submission of the final report. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./