( 2026:JHHC:2527 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.7404 of 2025 ------ Manzujur Ansari @ Manzur Ansari @ Manzur Momin @ Md. Manzur Ansari, aged about 55 years, Son of Late Nijamuddin Ansari, Resident of Village-Harwadih, P.O.-Bhognadih, P.S.-Barhait, District-Sahibganj. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No:-03 Dated:-30-01-2026 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Barhait P.S. Case No.65 of 2023 instituted under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for anticipatory bail, earlier the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 17.03.2025 in A.B.A. No.1655 of 2025. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the meanwhile, some more time has been elapsed and in the meanwhile the petitioner has received the notice under Section 41 A of Cr.P.C and the same has been replied to by the petitioner. It is next submitted that some valid grounds could not be placed on behalf of the petitioner on the earlier occasion. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest and in view of the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of having committed forgery of various documents, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case in order to find out the details of forgery. 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 of misappropriating government money 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 for the same reasons as mentioned in the order dated 17.03.2025 in A.B.A. No.1655 of 2025. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 30/01/2026 Abhiraj/