2025:JHHC:33418 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No.6302 of 2025 1. Bundi Barla aged about 40 years, wife of Bhuspesh Oraon, Resident of Village: Puggu Karamdeepa, Post Office & Police Station: Gumla, District: Gumla State: Jharkhand; 2. Baijnath Kujur aged about 67 years, son of Late Chumnu Oraon, Resident of Village: Jariya, Post Office & Police Station: Bero, District: Ranchi State: Jharkhand; 3. Budhdeo Oraon aged about 39 years, son of Bulu Oraon, Resident of Village: Chiri Kadak, Post Office & Police Station: Lohardaga, District: Lohardaga State: Jharkhand; 4. Ignasus Bara aged about 49 years, son of Late Patras Bara, Resident of Village: Mahugaon, Bharno Post Office & Police Station: Bharno, District: Gumla State: Jharkhand. …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P. ------ 2/10.11.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Kisko P.S. Case No. 29/2023, for the offence under registered Sections 419/420/467/468/34 of Indian Penal Code; pending in the Court of learned, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Lohardaga. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are also victim of the circumstances and according to him the petitioners have also invested amount in the company namely Petron Mineral and Metal Ltd. He further submits that the allegations are made that the informant has invested the amount in the said company on the pretext that the amount will be more than double in three years and when the informant went to encash the amount, the company refused to pay. He then submits that the petitioners have also invested in the said company and their amount are also not returned by the company and the allegations 2025:JHHC:33418 2 are made that the petitioners have introduced the informant for investment in the said company. He then submits that in identical situation, other co- accused has been granted anticipatory bail in ABA No.6129 of 2025 by order dated 16.10.2025. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioners happened to be the agents of the said company. 5. Considering that certificate of investment has been issued by the said company and the signature of the petitioners are not there and those certificates are part of the FIR and the petitioners have also invested in the said company and their amount are also not returned by the company and the other co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail in aforesaid ABA, I am inclined to provide anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, the petitioners, above named, are hereby directed to surrender before the learned Court within three weeks from today, and in the event of their surrender/arrest, the petitioners, above named, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Lohardaga in connection with Kisko P.S. Case No.29 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 7. This Anticipatory Bail Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 10.11.2025 R.Kumar