2025:JHHC:17986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3244 of 2025 ------ Kamaluddin Ansari, S/o Hanif Ansari. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshay Kr. Mahato, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. ----- 06/ 04.07.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Parsudih P.S. Case No.58 of 2019, for offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned A.C.J.M., at Jamshedpur. 3. The informant namely Fatu Soren received a telephone call and he was informed that he has won a Bolero vehicle in prize and for taking delivery of the vehicle, some amount has to be deposited by him. The informant deposited the amount in Bank accounts from time to time, amounts of which accumulates to Rs.7,49,500/-. Thereafter, it was detected that the petitioner was cheated. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and the Bank account number which is mentioned in the F.I.R., does not belong to the petitioner also. 5. Learned P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer 2025:JHHC:17986 2 for anticipatory bail and submits that an F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia. During investigation it has come that the informant has also deposited substantial amount in the account of this petitioner, which is evident from para-25 of the case diary. 6. The aforesaid fact has also been mentioned in para-6 of the impugned order. Some amount which has been credited in the Account No.591910110009393, belongs to this petitioner. Further, from para-7 of the impugned order, I find that the learned Sessions Judge has matched the amount and the date and found that the defence plea of the petitioner is absolutely false. 7. Considering the allegations and the fact that the informant has deposited the amount in the account of this petitioner also, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, as this case needs extensive and proper investigation in presence of the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant. Cp-3