2025:JHHC:19667 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3806 of 2025 1. Sangeeta Babbar, wife of Rakesh Babbar, resident of A-25, Second Floor, Narayana Vihar, Narayana Industrial Estate, P.O and P.S. Narayana Vihar, Area South West Delhi, Delhi NCT. 2. Rishabh Babbar, son of Rakesh Babbar, resident of D 5/9 First Floor DLF, Phase-1, Gurgaon Phase-1, Chakarpur, P.S and P.O- Chakarpur, District Gurgaon/Haryana. 3. Ankit Babbar, son of Rakesh Babbar, resident of G-1, Jangpura Extension, Jangpura Defence Colony, P.O Jangpura, P.S. South Delhi, Area- South Delhi/Delhi NCT. ...... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jha … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Lily Sahay, A.P.P. …..... 02/18.07.2025: This anticipatory bail application under Section(s) 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest for the offences registered under Section(s) 406, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard the parties at length and had gone through the documents, annexed along with this application. 3. The allegation in the FIR is that the informant became a CNF Agent of the Company , which is managed by the petitioners. It is alleged that rupees forty lakh was paid as a security deposit in lieu of said agency. As per the agreement, on the said deposit, it was agreed that the Company of the petitioners will pay 1.5% interest. It is alleged that interest was paid for some period, but thereafter the same has not been paid. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, which should have been invoked, but a criminal case has been filed to recover the amount. He further submits that this is a glaring example for misuse of the procedure of the Court, where in a business dispute has been converted into criminal dispute. 5. Learned A.P.P opposes the prayer for bail and submits that rupees forty lakh has been paid but no interest on the said amount has been paid for the entire period. 6. After hearing the parties, I find that the case arises out of business transaction. Admittedly for some period the interest was paid and thereafter it was stopped. There is an agreement between the parties also, in which, there is an arbitration clause. 7. Considering the nature of allegation, which arises out of business dealings and the allegation is that the interest on the amount of security deposit, has not been paid, I am inclined to allow this anticipatory bail application. Accordingly, the petitioners, above named, are directed to surrender before the court below within four weeks from today and in the event of their surrender/arrest, the court below is directed to enlarge them on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1st Class, Ranchi, in connection with Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 84/2023, subject to condition that one of the bailers should be close relative of the petitioners 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/her share in the property with further condition that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 will appear before the Investigating Officer once in every fifteen days till submission of final report. Anu/-C.P.-3 (ANANDA SEN, J.)