2025:JHHC:13106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2561 of 2025 ----- Prakash Chand Jain, S/o Late Chiranjit Lal Jain @ Chiranji Lal Jai, R/o Ram Bhawan, Sirajuddin Lane, Mahavir Chowk, Upper Bazar, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, Ranchi .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Jain, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P. …...... 05/ 29.04.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The present anticipatory bail application under sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for the offences registered under Sections 316(4), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, the case is pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in connection with the Kotwali P.S Case No. 296 of 2024. 3. The petitioner is the father of one of the accused named Pratik Jain. The present prosecution arises from an FIR lodged by Sandeep Poddar, proprietor of Infinity Promoters, alleging that accused Pratik Jain, employed as an accountant and godown in-charge, misappropriated funds by making fake entries in the tally software and delivering goods without receiving payments. Upon inquiry, it was found that funds were fraudulently transferred to the accounts of Pratik Jain and his mother. The alleged fraud amounts to Rs.32,67,992/-, with potential of further loss. Pratik Jain also allegedly assaulted the informant when confronted and later transferred ₹1,00,500/- to the informant’s brother. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is named in the FIR but from its contents it is clear that this petitioner is not involved in alleged occurrence. He further submitted that no offence is made out against the petitioner for the offences alleged in the FIR. He further submitted that there are specific allegations against the co-accused (Pratik Jain) and the petitioner is not aware of his son’s act. He lastly submitted that the petitioner is having no criminal antecedents against him and he willing to co-operate with the investigation. Thus, on these grounds he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 6. After the careful perusal of the FIR and also the materials available on record, I find that the petitioner in this case has been served with the notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and he has appeared before the investigating officer (Paragraph-3 to the Supplementary Affidavit). Considering the nature of allegations made against the petitioner and further the petitioner is the father of main accused, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to grant the anticipatory bail. Thus, the instant anticipatory bail application stands allowed. The petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the learned court below within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on the event of his surrender or arrest, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 296 of 2024, subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be a close relative of the petitioner and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his name or in the name of his ancestors in which he is having share and to that effect, he has to file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating his share in the property. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./