IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 2066 of 2025 1. Deyji Sinha, aged about 45 years, wife of Raj Kumar Sinha 2. Raju Sinha @ Raju Kumar Sinha, aged about 49 years son of Late Ramshankar Prasad, 3. Sagar Sinha @ Sagar Kumar Sinha, aged about 32 years son of Raju Sinha @ Rajiv Kumar Sinha, 4. Khushi Sinha, aged about 22 years, wife of Sagar Kumar Sinha, 5. Sunny Sinha @ Sunny Ku Sinha @ Shubham Kumar Sinha, aged about 29 years son of Raju Sinha, 6. Saurav Sinha @ Sorav Ku Sinha @ Saurabh Sinha , aged about 26 years, son of Raju Sinha All are residents of village- Ramua, Bishungarh, P.O. & PS- Bishnugarh, District- Hazaribag … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … opp. party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh , Addl.. PP 02 / 28.03.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Bishnugarh PS. Case no. 143 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that when the informant was in need of money to purchase land, the petitioners arranged loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- from five micro companies but the petitioner no. 1 and 2, fraudulently took money from the informant with an assurance to return the money taken by them to her and also assured that they will deposit the interest in the bank. After a few days, the petitioner no. 1 and 2, took the informant to the Rural Bank and got a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- disbursed in her name for construction of house and assured that they will return Rs. 7,50,000/- in fifteen days but did not return the money. It is also alleged that the petitioner has committed same type of fraud with 22 other persons of the village and cheated Rs. 48,33,000/-. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and there is no document to show the entrustment of any money to the petitioners. It is next submitted that the informant and other victims have paid some of the installments of the respective loan amount taken by them and as the informant and other loanees defaulted in payment of loan installments, hence, to save their skin, this false case has been foisted. It is next submitted that the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case and also undertakes to furnish sufficient security including cash security and they undertake not to annoy or disturb the informant in any manner during pendency of the case hence, the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioners shall be released on bail on depositing Rs. 20,000/- each as cash security and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, in connection with Bishnugarh PS. Case no. 143 of 2024 subject to the condition that the petitioners will not annoy or disturb the informant in any manner during pendency of the case and will co-operate with the Investigation of the case and will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will submit mobile phone number and photocopy of Aadhaar card at the time of surrender in the court below with an undertaking not to change mobile phone number during the pendency of the case along with the other conditions laid down under section 482 (2) of BNSS, 2023. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-