IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1077 of 2025 ------ Dhanoj Kerai, aged about 37 years, son of Rasika Kerai, resident of Uisya Pokharpi, Uisea, Noamundi, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.-Noamundi, Dist.-West Singhbhum .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mrs. J. S. Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 18-02-2025 Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Sonua P.S. Case No.10 of 2023 registered under Sections 406, 420, 120B, 467, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C., the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner in criminal conspiracy with co- accused persons by way of forgery and cheating, committed criminal breach of trust by transferring the money of informant to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- in his personal account. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that petitioner has not forged any document and no amount was transferred to the account of the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that he has committed forgery for cheating and criminal breach of trust and transferred more than Rs.15,00,000/- from the account of the informant to his personal account. It is further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case for the recovery of the cheated amount and to find out the details of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, as well as requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Rohit/