IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1655 of 2025 ------ Manzujur Ansari @ Manzur Ansari @ Manzur Momin @ Md. Manzur Ansari, aged about 55 years, s/o late Nijamuddin Ansari, r/o Harwadih, P.O.-Bhognadih, P.S.-Barhait, Dist.- Sahibganj … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 17.03.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Barhait P.S. Case No.65 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under sections 406/409/420/467/468/471/34 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 with the co-accused-Munoo Panda being a middle man; has misappropriated the government money under the Savitri Bai Fule Balika Smridhi Programme ,by committing forgery of Aadhar card and birth certificate of the beneficiaries. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has been arrayed only on the basis of suspicion. It is then submitted that the document annexed with the FIR reveals that the beneficiaries have taken the name of the co- accused person and co-accused persons has been given anticipatory bail by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sahibganj consequent upon the I.O. not producing the up-to-date case diary before the court concerned. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 14 of the anticipatory bail application. 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 in view of the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of having committed forgery of various documents, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of forgery. 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 misappropriating government money as well as 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-