[2026:JHHC:29134] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.5411 of 2026 ------ Umesh Mahto, aged about – 40 years, S/o- Dinanath Mahto, R/o- Vill.- Lagam, P.O.- Lagam, P.S.- Silli, Dist- Ranchi, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, Addl.P.P. For the Informant : Mrs. (Dr.) Vandana Singh, Advocate Mr. Vivek Kr. Sharma, Advocate Ms. Aliza, Advocate ------ Order No.02 Dated-28-09-2026 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with B.S. City P.S. Case No.84 of 2026 registered under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 318(3), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 339, 340(2), 61(2) of the B.N.S., 2023. 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 cheating and criminal breach of trust by dishonestly inducing the informant to part with Rs.1,68,33,000/- for selling him 543 Metric Ton of Scrap and produced a forged allotment letter purportedly relating to 543 of Metric Ton of scrap and there is further allegation that the petitioner has also committed forgery and is having in possession of a document knowing it to be forged, with intent to use it as genuine and also used a forged document as genuine knowing it to be forged. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and general and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that the money was transferred to the account of M/s Ganika Enterprises and the petitioner is in no way associated with the said M/s Ganika Enterprises and admittedly M/s Ganika Enterprises has paid back Rs.50,00,000/- to the account of the company represented by the informant. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties is a commercial dispute. It is also submitted that the petitioner is co-operating with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. 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 and submit that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of being involved in each of the stages of cheating by deceiving the informant and his company namely Ananya Minerals Private Limited and inducing the informant and his company so deceived to part with huge amount of Rs.1,68,33,000/-. It is also submitted that in view of huge amount of money involved and the forgery of documents, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. 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 as well as 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 above-named 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.) Dated-28.09.2026-Animesh/