IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1029 of 2025 ------ 1. Uma Mahto, Director of A.M. Enterprises, Aged about 33 years, wife of Rakesh Kumar Mahato. 2. Naresh Kumar Mahato, Aged about 28 years, Son of Anand Lal Mahto. 3. Anita Mahto, Aged about 25 years, Daughter of Anand Mahato. All are residents of village Paharigora, P.O. Khas Jeenagora, P.S. Baliapur, District –Dhanbad. … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate : Mr. Sheyakur Rahman, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 14.02.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Baliapur P.S. Case No.103 of 2024 registered under sections 467/468/471/420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners being the members of A.M. Enterprises who were working as vendors/suppliers in the schemes of Block for which more than Rs.19,00,000/- has been paid in the bank account of this establishment in the financial year 2023-24 but the establishment was banned from working in the Block’s schemes due to non-depositing the amount of GST, Royalty etc. regularly and the petitioners without supplying materials provided false voucher and they were helping the co-accused –Rakesh Kumar Mahto in his illegal activities. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and the petitioners have supplied materials to the beneficiaries samiti hence the cost of materials has been paid by the beneficiary samiti panchayat to the petitioners through cheque under the scheme. It is next submitted that Vishal Kumar is a contractual worker and he cannot be the in-charge of Block Panchayat Raj Officer. It is next submitted that there is a delay of about one month in lodging the F.I.R. for which there is no explanation. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been implicated in this case only because they are the relatives of Raksh Kumar Mahto who has been employed in the Block as Accounts Clerk-cum-Computer Operator on contractual basis. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of committing criminal breach of trust by dishonestly misappropriating Rs.19,00,000/-. It is further submitted that keeping in view the forgery committed by the petitioners by manipulating the documents, their custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the forgery committed by them. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners and the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-