IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 774 of 2025 1. Shargun Harijan @ Sargun Haijan, aged about 52 years, Son of Ganesh Harijan, Resident of Village-Bandarjori Road, Shastri Nagar, Dumka, P.O. & P.S- Dumka Town, District- Dumka. 2. Mukesh Kumar Das, aged about 27 years, Son of Shargun Harijan, Resident of Village-Bandarjori Road, Shastri Nagar, Dumka, P.O. & P.S-Dumka Town, District- Dumka. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Suman Kumar, Son of Ramtu Prasad Mahto, Resident of Village Domankitta, P.O. & P.S. Mahagama, District- Godda. … Opp. Parties Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari , Adv. For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl.PP 02 / 05.02.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Mahagama P.S. Case No. 26 of 2024 registered under Sections 420, 468, 469, 471, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have cheated and thereby induced the informant to pay money and has committed forgery of the document for arranging a job for the informant in the Civil Court, Godda and have prepared forged appointment letter in the name of the Registrar General of this Court. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and this a counterblast to Dumka (T) P.S. case no. 301 of 2023. It is next submitted that the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case hence, the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that in view of serious allegation against the petitioners, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioners ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious allegations against the petitioners and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-