IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.2010 of 2025 ------ 1. Pradeep Sharma @ Amit Singh aged about 32 years S/o Ghanshyam Sharma R/o Bhagwati Ganj, P.O.-Bhagwatiganj, P.S.- Bhagwatiganj, Distt.-Balrampur, U.P. 2. Rudra Pratap Singh @ Rudra Pratap, aged about 32 years S/o Hridaynath Singh R/o Fulwariya, P.O. Bhaluwani, P.S. Bhaluwani, Distt. Dewaria, U.P. .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rahul, Advocate : Mr. Agnivesh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Devesh Krishna, SC Mines III : Mr. Vaibhav Joshi, AC to SC Mines III ------ Order No.02 Dated- 27/03/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No.81 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No.294 of 2020 instituted under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in criminal conspiracy with the co- accused persons has committed cheating and forgery by creating false document to show that there is one Organic India Agrotech Company which will give business opportunity, upon dealership of the same being taken by the persons interested and accordingly the informant and others deposited huge amounts of money, but the petitioners closed their establishment and fled away. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the petitioners are in no way concerned with the Organic India Agrotech Organisation. It is further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that in view of the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners of forgery and cheating, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case in order to find out the details of the case. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners, the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/