IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.9409 of 2023 ------ Alka Singh .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Another .... .... .... Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Kislaya Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, Addl.P.P. For the OP : Mr. Awanish Shekhar, Advocate ------ Order No.10 Dated- 08-01-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.229 of 2023 registered under Section 406/420/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner cheated and dishonestly induced the complainant by suppressing material facts and created false document and committed forgery by posing as if the Flat No.A-03 (3 BHK of Anju Sanjay Apartment) is free from all encumbrances and executed a sale deed by suppressing the material fact that petitioner created an equitable mortgage of the said flat with Indian Bank, Bariyatu Branch, Ranchi by depositing the title deed of the said flat with the said bank. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the money was paid by the informant to the husband of the petitioner and in the agreement, it has been mentioned that the informant has purchased the flat with all encumbrances, charges and liens. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of having committed forgery and cheating, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case in order to find out the detail particulars of the case. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/