IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1957 of 2025 ------ Mumtaz @ Lallu, aged about 40 years, son of Nirja Miyan, resident of Ketaki, Dev, P.O. & P.S. Dev, Dist. Aurangabad (Bihar) .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P For the Informant : Mr. Tarun Kr. No.1, Advocate ------ Order No.02 Dated-26-03-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Chhattarpur P.S. Case No.229 of 2024 instituted for the offences punishable under Section 316(2)/318(4)/351(3) of the B.N.S., 2023, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed criminal breach of trust by taking Rs.20,60,050/- from the informant for investment in the business of fish and after taking the money, has closed the business and fled away to his native place. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that at best the petitioner invested the money in the business. It is then submitted that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the informant for running the business. It is then submitted that the petitioner has returned the money to the informant during the business. It is further submitted that the informant snatched a cheque from the petitioner and misused the same. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-12 of the instant bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and drawing attention of this court towards para-37 and 41 of the case diary, submit that the police during the investigation of the case found that the petitioner has issued a cheque of Rs.20,60,000/- in favour of the informant but the same was dishonoured. It is next submitted that the Bank has categorically intimated the Investigating Officer of the case that the petitioner has not given any information to the Bank regarding the cheque which was dishonoured; to have been lost by the petitioner or the said cheque is a stolen cheque; rather the cheque was dishonoured because of insufficient of funds. It is next submitted that during the investigation of the case, it was also found that the petitioner has cheated several other persons too, of huge amount of money. Hence, it is submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case for recovery of the cheated amount. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, keeping in view the serious nature of allegations against the petitioner of committing criminal breach of trust of huge amount of money of the informant , as well as others and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case for recovery of the cheated amount, this Court is not inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/