[2026:JHHC:11611] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.3281 of 2026 ------ Baldeo Hazra, Age 60 Years Son of Late Bhiko Hazra Resident of Village Lataki, P.O. Lataki, Police Station – Jamua, District - Giridih .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhash Ch. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-21-04-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Tisri P.S. Case No. 79 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2425 of 2006 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed forgery by producing forged educational certificates and on the basis of the same, has cheated the State by deceiving the officers of state of the common and inducing the State to pay him money. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 07.02.2026 as mentioned in para-13 of the instant bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-12 of the bail application. It is also submitted that the petitioner was earlier given the privileges of anticipatory bail by this Court conditionally vide the order dated 13.07.2021 in A.B.A. No. 4679 of 2020 but as the petitioner did not fulfill the condition, hence, he did not surrender before the court concerned; in terms of the said order. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has cheated the State and committed forgery and investigation of the case is still going on, hence, there is requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioner during the investigation of the case and there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be released on bail. Considering the direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner, requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case as well as chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the bail of the above named petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 21.04.2026 Saroj/