2025:JHHC:17480 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 10966 of 2023 ----- G Srinivas Rao @ Sreeniwas, S/o G Tata Rao, R/o L6/15, Fouja Bagan, Ariya Baris, Near Shigma Computer, Jamshedpur, P.O.- Baridih, P.S. Sidhgora, Dist- East Singhbhum .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.M Ganesh Rao, S/o Late M Sudama Rao @ M Krishna Rao, R/o New Baridih Kalu Bagan, Zone no.- 6B, Radha Swami Colony, P.O. Baridih, P.S. Sidhgora, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum … Opp. Party(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, AddI. P.P. …...... 06/ 02.07.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application filed by the petitioner praying for grant of anticipatory bail under Sections 438 & 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, apprehending his arrest for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 406, 420 and 386 of IPC, in connection with Sidhgora P.S. Case No.75 of 2023, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Jamshedpur. 3. There is an allegation against this petitioner that on the pretext of providing job to the informant he has taken money, but has not provided job and nor has returned the money. 4. During course of argument, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is cooperating with the investigation and he has appeared before the Investigating Officer, which is evident from Annexure-A to the counter- affidavit. 5. In reply, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that petitioner has appeared once. It was felt by the police to call the petitioner again for investigation, for which, the police tried to serve notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. on 01.05.2025 and 06.06.2025, but the house of the petitioner was found locked, so the notice could not be served. 6. On this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was unaware about the aforesaid fact and now as the said fact has come to his notice, he will appear before the I.O. within a week. 7. Intention of the I.O. to issue notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. to the petitioner clearly suggest that the I.O. does not feels it necessary to arrest the petitioner. 8. Considering the aforesaid fact, I am of the opinion that this anticipatory bail application is misconceived. 9. Petitioner should appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the investigation and thereafter appear before the Court concerned which should take an appropriate step in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./