IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1350 of 2025 ------ Amar Nath Pandey, aged about 54 years, son of late Kailash Nath Pandey, resident of C-2 Laxman Nagar, Colony Kanke Ranchi, P.O.-Kanke, P.S.-Kanke, Dist.-Ranchi … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Awadesh Pandey, son of late Mathura Pandey, resident of Sudna Ward No.10, P.O.-Daltonganj Town, P.S.-Daltonganj Town, Dist.-Palamau … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 27.02.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Kanke P.S. Case No.155 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 420/406/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention has cheated and committed criminal breach of trust by inducing the informant to part with Rs.15,50,000/- in his name and Rs.21,50,000/- in the name of one forged Prem Kumar Kapur by forging the documents and was instrumental in execution of a sale deed in favour of the petitioner by one person Kishore Thakur, who impersonated as the owner of the land Prem Kumar. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and in fact, the petitioner has also been cheated by the co-accused persons. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. 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 petitioner of cheating, commission of criminal breach of trust by undisputedly taking Rs.15,50,000/- by ensuring transfer of the said amount in his own bank account and by committing forgery by creating false document for impersonation of Kishore Thakur as Prem Kumar. It is next submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of forgery and also recovery of the cheated amount. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioner during the investigation of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-