IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1598 of 2025 ------ Abdul Rashid @ Abdul Rasid Ansari, aged about 85 years, son of late Biphan Main, resident of Vill-Koriya, P.O. & P.S.- Daltonganj (Sadar), Dist.-Palamau … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate : Mr. Amit Kr. Choubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 11.03.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.33 of 2019 (G.R. No. 1533 of 2024) registered for the offences punishable under sections 120B/ 147/ 148/ 323/ 341/ 427/379/420/467/468/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that a sale deed was executed by impersonation of the deceased sister-in-law of the informant. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and though the said sister-in-law of the informant died on 03.11.2001 but the sale deed was executed on 02.07.2002 and the petitioner is the identifying witness of the vendor of the sale deed. It is next submitted that the petitioner is an old person. 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 since the petitioner identified the impersonator of the deceased sister-in-law of the informant; hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the exact person to whom he identified as the sister-in-law of the informant; who has already died by the time the sale deed was executed. 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 of inter alia having committed the forgery for the purpose of cheating 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-