( 2025:JHHC:10457 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5163 of 2024 ------ 1. Mukhtar Alam @ M. Alam, aged about 55 years, son of Naqiuzzaman Salfi, Resident of 24, Road, No. 06E, Azad Nagar, Mango, P.O. and P.S. –Azad Nagar, Town – Jamshedpur, District –East Singhbhum 2. Walayat Hussain @ Vilayat Hussain, aged about 62 years, son of Ghulam Hussain, Resident of Ward No. 03, Road No. 14, Islam Nagar, Kopali, P.O. and P.S. –Chandil, District –Saraikella –Kharsawan … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.06 Dated- 03.04.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Azadnagar P.S. Case No.43 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406/409/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused person being a banker have committed criminal breach of trust by dishonestly misappropriating the gold of the informant, which was collected by the petitioners against a loan; by not giving the gold back, even if the informant has paid all the loan dues of her. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and the petitioners are the employees of the co-accused –Ziaur Rahman and the petitioners have already lodged an F.I.R. against the co-accused Ziaur Rahman and others vide Azadnagar P.S. Case No. 32 of 2024. It is next submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in para-21 of the instant anticipatory bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioners undertake to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that there is no reference of any gold loan transaction in the F.I.R. allegedly lodged by the petitioner no.1 vide Azadnagar P.S. Case No. 32 of 2024. It is then submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of collecting gold from the informant and not returning the gold even after the loan taken by the informant was deposited nor the petitioners could produce any document to show that any gold loan was given to the informant by the co-accused persons. It is next submitted that, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case for recovery of the gold in question. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners of committing cheating and criminal breach of trust being a banker and the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case for recovery of the gold in question, this Court is not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the above named petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-