IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.17 of 2025 ------ Chitranjan Kumar Singh .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhash Ch. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 08-01-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Giridih (T) P.S. Case No.09 of 2024 instituted under Sections 120B, 420, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was posted as CRO of Financial Institution and on his behalf the FIR has been lodged and being the issuing authority of license to run consumer service center, the petitioner in conspiracy with the co-accused- license holders and their associates, withdrew huge amount of money from different account holders of the informant’s financial intuition and deposited the same in the Bank Account of the co-accused persons. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the allegation against the petitioner is general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any condition. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege 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, his custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of conspiracy and to recover the cheated and misappropriated amount. Hence, It is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and 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 abovenamed 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.) Saroj/