IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 7739 of 2024 Dharamjeet Kumar @ Dharmjeet Kumar Gupta … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. PartY Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kr. Jha , Adv. For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl.PP. 04 / 02.01.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No. 171 of 2023 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that they petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co- accused was preparing forged certificate of different universities, boards and colleges using the forged documents, by way of cheating. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and those allegations are general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that seizure witness namely Akash Gupta was an employee of the mother of the petitioner and has committed theft in the residence of the mother of the petitioner and in that connection, the mother of the petitioner lodged Mango P.S. case no. 269 of 2023 and as a retaliation, this false case has been foisted against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no concern with the place of occurrence office of the dance studio. It is then submitted that petitioner lives in Delhi and he is ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Spl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of being in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, committed forgery by preparing forged certificates of various universities, boards and colleges, hence, in view of serious allegation against the petitioner, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during investigation of the case to find out the detail particulars of the forgery. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegations against the petitioner 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 petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-