2025:JHHC:37220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5753 of 2025 ---- Munna Chandravanshi @ Munna Chandrawanshi, aged about 25 years, son of Basant Chandravanshi, r/o Village Tabra, PO and PS Pandu, District Palamau, Jharkhand .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Satish Prasad, Advocate ---- 2/11.12.2025 Heard learned counsels for petitioner and for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Pandu PS Case No.31 of 2024, for offence registered under section 323, 406, 420, 504, 506, 34 of IPC, pending in court of learned J.M.F.C, Palamau. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case and the only allegation is made against the petitioner that he has introduced the villagers being agent for investing money Darwin Platform Company on the pretext that in 25 months the money will be doubled. He further submits that the petitioner is only an agent and he has got no role and in that view of the matter, the petitioner may kindly be granted anticipatory bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that poor villagers have been duped on the pretext of doubling the invested amount and the petitioner has introduced the investor villagers in investing in the said company. He submits that there is a criminal antecedent against the petitioner that has come in the paragraph no.154 of the case diary being Complaint Case No.1787 of 2024 which has been converted into FIR being Pandu P.S case No.60 of 2024 dated 28.08.2024 and in reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in paragraph no.119 of the case diary, it has also come that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. 5. In view of the above and considering that the petitioner has worked as an agent of the said company and the innocent persons have been duped by way of saying that the invested amount will be doubled in 25 months and in paragraph no.154 it has come that there is one criminal antecedent against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, and as such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, is, hereby, rejected, and this anticipatory bail petition is, hereby, dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 11.12.2025 SI/