2025:JHHC:15183 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.6108 of 2024 ------ Ishak Gulam Jilani @ Ishak Gulam Sayyed, son of Gulam Jilani Sayyed, resident of Room No. 4, Building No. 13, C.Wing, Oti Apartment, PO Jogeshwari West, PS Amrut Nagar, District Mumbai Suburban (Mumbai) … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand. 2.Anupam Fuladia, wife of Raj Kumar Fuladia, R/o C2, Club Apartment, 2nd By Lane JC Road, PO Lalpur, PS Lalpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand … … Opposite Party(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kr. Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P. ----- 07/ 12.06.2025 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 406, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of JMFC-XXIV-cum-Additional Munsif, Ranchi in connection with Lalpur PS Case No. 169 of 2016. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire dispute arises out of business deals and thus the same cannot be converted into a criminal case. He relies upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in SLP(Crl.) No. 14423 of 2023 titled “Jay Shri and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan”. 4. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other accused persons have cheated the informant and her husband under the pretext of expansion of the their business and they received Rs. 2.3 crores in their bank account from the informant and her firm on false promises and inducement. 6. From the impugned order, I find that thrice anticipatory bail of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions 2025:JHHC:15183 2 Judge being ABP No. 1665 of 2018, ABP No. 1326 of 2024 and APB No. 1432 of 2024. In the impugned order it has been mentioned that processes under section 82 of Cr.PC was issued against the petitioner which was challenged in the Criminal Revision No. 30 of 2023. As per the petitioner the processes under section 82 of Cr.PC was set-aside. The petitioner admittedly did not joined the investigation. Even he did not complied with the notice under section 41A of Cr.PC, as submitted by the Investigating Officer. The police thereafter having no other alternative finding the case to be true filed chargesheet against the petitioner. The aforesaid conduct of the petitioner clearly suggests that while fully aware of the case petitioner neither appeared before the police nor appeared before the Court nor joined the investigation. Though the chargesheet has been submitted against others and also against the petitioner but the police has not written in the chargesheet about the status of the petitioner whether he was absconding or not. Simply the chargesheet has been submitted showing him as an accused. The police should have recorded in the chargesheet about the status of the petitioner whether he was absconding or not. Admittedly the petitioner has not joined in the investigation nor appeared before the Court inspite of the fact that his anticipatory bail was rejected, he is not on bail. Thus, it can be presumed that he was absconding. This is the attitude of the petitioner, thus, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail on these peculiar facts of this case. 7. This anticipatory bail application is dismissed. 8. The petitioner should appear before the Court concerned who will consider the facts of this case and pass an appropriate order. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/Cp-3