2025:JHHC:14059 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.6289 of 2024 ------ Ravi Mallah @ Ravi Kumar Mallah, son of late Shankar Mallah, R/o near Shiv Mandir, Parsatand, PO Bhagatdih, PS Jharia, District Dhanbad … … Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad Khan, AC to SC VII For the Informant : Mr. Mritunjay Choudhary, Advocate ----- 06/ 09.05.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for offences registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Govindpur PS Case No. 51 of 2024 pending in the Court of J.M. 1st Class at Dhanbad. 3. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 4. There is an allegation that on fake and forged documents the loan was granted to several persons. Those persons projected themselves to be the employees of BCCL when actually they were not. On forged documents they have obtained loan from the bank and thereafter they have misappropriated the entire money. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2025:JHHC:14059 2 petitioner is the employee of the builder and infact money has been returned by the petitioner also. 6. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that after it came to light that on the basis of forged documents the loan was sanctioned, internal inquiry was made and it was found that amount which was disbursed to the loanees was transferred to account of this petitioner which suggests that this petitioner has hand in committing this forgery. 7. After hearing the parties, I find that the loan was obtained by producing forged documents. Thereafter money was transferred by the loanee in the account of this petitioner. The involvement of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. Thus, this is a case where proper investigation even custodial interrogation is necessary. Thus, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/Cp-3