2025:JHHC:20608 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3905 of 2025 ---- Saurabh Kumar, S/o Sanjay Kumar Singh, R/o Bari Co-operative Colony, Near SBI, P.O. & P.S.- Sector-12, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Amrita Kumari, A.P.P. ---- 02/ 23.07.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Sector-12 P.S. Case No. 43 of 2025, registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bokaro. 3. As per the First Information Report, it has been alleged by the informant that the petitioner along with co-accused person took Rs.50,00,000/- from the informant in the garb of selling a landed property at Bari Co-operative Colony to the informant. But the transfer of the said property had not been done in informant’s favour till date. It has been further alleged that the petitioner misrepresented himself to be an employee of bank and had cheated several other persons for which New Town P.S. Case No. 39/2025 was registered against him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and the allegations levelled against him are general and lacks specific attribution. There is no written agreement nor any reference to the date or terms of the said agreement for sale. 5. Learned counsel representing the state has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner was actively involved in cheating the informant with a huge sum of money by impersonating himself as the Chief Auditor of S.B.I. Further, the petitioner is having criminal antecedents of like nature. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the records, I find that there is serious and direct allegations against the petitioner of impersonating and cheating of huge money from the informant to sell a 2025:JHHC:20608 -: 2 :- property. In the impugned order, the Additional Sessions Judge has observed that the witnesses examined in course of investigation at paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the case diary have supported the allegation against the petitioner. It has also been mentioned that the petitioner has criminal antecedents of similar nature of offences. Furthermore, the petitioner was served notice under section 41 A of Cr.P.C. but he did not appear before the I.O. rather submitted his reply through post, which according to me is not the proper compliance of the notice. 7. Considering all these facts as also keeping in view the nature of allegation, which requires extensive investigation and even investigation in presence of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. 8. This anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03