2026:JHHC:7737 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No.37 of 2026 1. M.D. Hasnen, aged about 28 years, S/o- Abdul Wahab, R/o Near Urdu School, Haludpukhur, PO-Kowali, P.S.-Kowali, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 2. Miraj Kamal @ Meraj Kamal aged about 32 years S/o-Shekh Nehaluddin, R/o Kocha Kuli, Haludpukhur, P.O.-Kowali, P.S- Kowali, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand, …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Avnish Prakhar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. ------ 2/19.03.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 337 of 2024, for the offence registered under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to sections 316(2), 318, 338, 336,340 and 61 (2) of Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioners have not induced or cheated anybody and the petitioners happened to be the agents of different banks. He also submits that the petitioners were only engaged to make customers, apart from that, petitioners are having no role in cheating. In this view of the matter, the anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that by way of alluring the innocent persons of selling the 2026:JHHC:7737 2 vehicle, the petitioners have cheated the money of innocent persons. 5. In the FIR there are direct allegation against these petitioners of commission of forgery by cheating a large number of persons by way of alluring to purchase the vehicle on being cash, however, the vehicle was even supplied on loan, the petitioners are having two criminal antecedents, which has come in para 56 of the case diary, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 19.03.2026 R.Kumar