( 2025:JHHC:10947 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.2215 of 2025 ------ Sanjay Sah, aged about 48 yrs, son of late Kartik Sah, Resident of Mohalla Ram Mandir Road, P.O.-Jhounsagarhi, P.S.-Sub-Division, District-Deoghar. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Alok Anand, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, Addl.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate ------ Order No.02 Dated- 08/04/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.275 of 2024 registered under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons has committed forgery by getting a registered power of attorney purportedly executed by Ratan Lal Chakrawarty on 25.08.2022 even though the said Ratan Lal Chakrawarty undisputedly died in 1985 and in exercise of that power vested by the said forged power of attorney, sold the said land to the co-accused Mithun Sarkar, even though the land belongs to descendants of Ratan Lal Chakrawarty, who has executed general power of attorney in favor of the complainant. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the power of attorney was provided by the complainant to the petitioner. It is next submitted that because of the dispute between the complainant and his nephew, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that there is no way, by which, without the complicity and participation of the petitioner, the power of attorney dated 25.08.2022 purportedly executed by Ratan Lal Chakrawarty; who was indisputably dead by that date, could have been executed, hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case in order to find out the details and manner of forgery committed by the petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the 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 abovenamed petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/