2025:JHHC:21566 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI --- A.B.A. No. 4069 of 2025 ---- 1.Sanjeev Mittal @ Sanjeev Kumar Mittal, aged 47 years, son of Anirudh Prasad Agarwal 2.Varsha Mittal, age about 30 years wife of Sanjeev Mittal, both residents of East Gola Road, Upper Bazar, Lohardaga, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Bipin Prasad Agarwal, s/o Dharmraj Prasad Agarwal, r/o BID, Gumla Road, Near Gumla Road, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P. ---- 2/04.08.2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.106 of 2023, for the offence registered under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 120B of the IPC, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Umesh Kumar has taken loan and these petitioners are happened to be the son in law and daughter of Umesh Kumar and they have not issued the cheque and the allegations against these petitioners are there that they have assisted Umesh Kumar and one person has been made guarantor in the said loan and subsequently he has not been able to pay the EMIs and thereafter the Bank has issued notice to the complainant who happened to be guarantor and when the guarantor approached him, Umesh Kumar has issued a cheque and handed over the same to the guarantor to present it before the Bank as a security 2025:JHHC:21566 --2-- cheque, however, the cheque was not encashed and pursuant to that the complaint case was filed. He submits that however the learned court has not taken cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the cognizance has been taken under other sections of the IPC. He submits in view of that, anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioners. 4. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent by way of inviting attention of the Court to paragraph no.19 of the present A.B.A submits that the petitioners have themselves relied in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I. reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 and in this background they are required to appear before the learned court and the learned court will pass the appropriate order. 5. In reply, Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners is coming under category –‘A’ of the case of ‘Satender Antil’ (supra). 6. In view of above, the petitioners, above named, are hereby directed to surrender before the learned court and the learned court, on proper surety, as it deem fit, shall release the petitioners. 7. This petition is disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/