2025:JHHC:24887 --1-- A.B.A. No. 4016 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4016 of 2025 ---- Sorabh Goswami @ Sourav Kumar Goswami, aged about 19 years, son of Kuldeep Goswami, Resident of village – Tiranga Chouk, Madhpara, Pakur, PO – Pakur, PS – Pakur (Town), District – Pakur .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Someshwar Ray, Advocate ---- 04/22.08.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Pakur Town P.S. Case No.281 of 2024 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the Court of learned CJM, Pakur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner is not named in the FIR and the name of the petitioner has come in the course of the investigation. He submits that two co- accused persons, who are named in the FIR, have taken the name of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the case diary, pursuant to the order of co-ordinate Bench, has been 2025:JHHC:24887 --2-- A.B.A. No. 4016 of 2025 received. He further submits that the co-accused have stated that the petitioner has sold one of the stolen motorcycle in the State of West Bengal and the petitioner is having one criminal antecedent as disclosed in paragraph No.12 of case diary. 5. In view of the above, it transpires that the petitioner is having the criminal antecedent and the stolen motorcycle has been sold by this petitioner in the State of West Bengal that has been disclosed by co-accused and they have taken the name of the petitioner that has also come in the case diary. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Sangam/