1 2025:JHHC:23084 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No.3645 of 2025 Rajat Saraf, aged about 42 years, son of Late Vijay Saraf, resident of 130/56, Bangur Avenue, Block-A, Jeevan Jyoti Apartment, 4th Floor, P.O.-Baguiati, P.S.- Baguiati, District- Kolkata, State- West Bengal. ….. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The state of Jharkhand 2. Vinod Tiwari, son of Sidh Nath Tiwari, resident of H. No. 250, Line No. 8, Kasidih, P.O. Sakchi, P.S. Sakchi, Town- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum. ..... … Opp. Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Akhilesh Kr. Shrivastava, Advocate Miss Neha Agrawal, Advocate ------ 8/11.08.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State as also learned counsel appearing for the Informant. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No.241 of 2024, for the alleged offences registered under Sections 420, 409, 413, 418, 406, 419, 468 and 471 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the sole proprietor of Jai Jagarnnath Consultancy, a registered firm, engaged to arrange loan against property. 4. He submits that in the year 2022, the informant contacted the petitioner with Sanjay Gupta & Ritesh Agarwal for taking loan 2 against property. 5. He further submits that on 03.06.2022, the informant and Smirca Tiwary jointly executed a Mortgage Deed with him and then he issued a Loan Sanction Letter for Rs.12,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Crore) only in favour of the informant, in which, it has clearly been mentioned that after proper enquiry, the loan amount will be disbursed. 6. He further submits that on enquiry, it was found that the mortgaged property was not belonging to the informant, which was also dealt by Sanjay Gupta & Ritesh Agarwal, so he cancelled the Loan Sanction Letter. 7. He further submits that on enquiry, it has found that the said property was not belonging to the informant. According to him, the petitioner never executed any power of attorney in favour one Samir Kumar Chakraborty regarding the disputed property, as alleged. 8. According to him, the petitioner has received a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- that was processing charge of Rupees 12 crore. He submits that thereafter the petitioner has not received anything and in view of that bail may be granted and he is ready to return Rs.18,00,000/-. He submits that the intention of cheat is not there and in spite of that, the case has been registered. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the document on record, which has been filed along with the counter affidavit by the informant, which clearly suggest that the petitioner’s intention was not good from the very inception and even the 3 petitioner is facing the charge under the Money Laundering Act and for that the Enforcement Directorate is also investigating and the petitioner is having criminal antecedent also. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by placing the FIR and submits that defrauding of people in the name of Business Loan by the firm name Jai Jagarnnath Consultancy is very much clear. Not only the informant, but many other people have also been cheated by the petitioner. 11. He further submits that Jai Jagarnath Consultancy is neither a Non-Banking Financial Company nor Bank registered with RBI, however acts as an unregistered NBFC granting loans with or without any security and sanction. 12. He further submits that the petitioner is the proprietor of the said firm Jai Jagarnath Consultancy, which purportedly lends loans against properties to the purported eligible and interested persons. He further submits that the petitioner herein has conspired with other associates offered business loan to the informant as loan against security to the tune of Rs.12,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Crores) in the name of his business M/s. Shraddha Utilities Private Limited and provided a sanction letter dated 18.06.2022 and has committed a financial fraud and cheating of more than Rs.40,00,000/- including Forgery of security documents for the purpose of cheating and using of forged documents as genuine. He submits that a cheque of Rupees six crore was issued, which was not encashed and the bank has 4 informed that the said account has already been closed and for that a return memo is there issued by the bank, which is contained in page 100 of the counter affidavit. 13. He further submits that the petitioner herein and his co- associates have committed fraud, forgery and criminal breach of trust inasmuch as these persons have admittedly made false promise of granting business loan to the answering respondent in the name of the firm M/s Shraddha Utilities Private Limited vide a purported sanction letter dated 18.06.2022 on creation of security documents on some property purportedly owned by Samir Kumar Chakroborty an associate of the petitioner. He further submits that the informant is not having any land in West Bengal. 14. It appears from the documents on record that the petitioner herein has offered a loan of Rupees 12 crores to the informant and further he has taken Rupees 18 lakh as a processing fee on the said amount. Further the cheque of Rupees 06 crores has been issued to the informant after closing of the said bank account, which is evident from bank return memo, contained at page 100 of the counter affidavit filed by the informant. The said firm of the petitioner has got no sanction, which is not registered. From para 17 of the Anticipatory Bail Application, this fact has been admitted by the petitioner that he has issued a cheque of Rupees 06 crores as a security cheque, even the mortgage of the property has been arranged by the petitioner, not by the informant and he was associated with the petitioner namely Samir Kumar Chakroborty. The petitioner has also 5 been summoned by the Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India under the PMLA Act (Annexure-B). The aforesaid facts clearly suggests that how the petitioner has manipulated the things, that to by way of Company, which is not registered by NBFC. 15. In this background, the nature of allegation and the way the documents have been created by the petitioner, it cannot be ruled out that the petitioner will not tamper with the evidence. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 17. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed and disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) R.Kumar