IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.6808 of 2024 ------ Bijen Duari @ Bijon Kumar Duary @ Vijen Duari .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. M/s Shri Ram Constructions through its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar .... .... .... Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Special P.P For the OP No.2 : Mr. Punit Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No.04 Dated- 06-01-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No.78 of 2020 instituted under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 of the IPC, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was the ‘Senior Manager (R.M.)-Civil’ and he joined McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited (MBECL) in the year 2017 and resigned on 22.03.2019 and National Building Construction Corporation Limited (NBCCL) hired the services of McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited. There is allegations that in contravention of the clause of the agreement, the sub contract was given to the informant. It is next submitted that the work was already going on and sum of Rs. 18 Crore had already been paid to the informant and the informant has also filed a case before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench for recovery of the rest of the amount; which has been dismissed. It is next submitted that Arbitration Clause has been invoked by MBECL against the informant. It is next submitted that two of the officers of MBECL respectively the Chairman and Director namely Aaditya Khaitan and Srinivas Singh have been given the privilege of anticipatory bail vide order dated 29.04.2024 in A.B.A. No. 1491 of 2024 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case and the dispute between the parties is at best a civil dispute. The case of the petitioner stands on better footing than the co-accused persons, who have been given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. The learned Special P.P for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within eight weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No.78 of 2020 with the condition that he will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and further conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) RKM/