( 2026:JHHC:12694 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 7114 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 7114 of 2025 Enjamul Hak @ Injamamul Hoque, aged about 29 years, son of Jahangir Alam @ Jahangir Hussain, resident of Village- Bari Aliganj, P.O. Pakur, P.S. Pakur (T), Dist.- Pakur, Jharkhand, at present residing at Village- Bhasaipaikar, P.O. Bhasaipaikar, P.S. Samsherganj, Dist.- Murshidabad, West Bengal … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Md. Farooque Ansari, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P. For the Informant : Md. Yasir Arafat, Advocate ----- 03/30.04.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Pakur (T) P.S. Case No.212/2025, registered for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 468, 471, 384 of the IPC, pending in the Court of the learned C.J.M., Pakur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that false allegation is made that after taking the money, the informant has not been provided admission in D. Pharma in the city of Bangalore. He further submits that supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, wherein, the list of the students who got admission in D. Pharma has been annexed and the informant’s name is disclosed at serial no.5 of the said list, contained in Annexure-A and in view of that, the informant has already been provided admission. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State and informant jointly opposed the prayer and submit that sum of Rs.4,45,700/- has been taken from the ( 2026:JHHC:12694 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 7114 of 2025 informant, however, admission has not been provided. Learned counsel for the informant further submits that so far as the name at serial no.5 of Annexure-A of supplementary affidavit is concerned, that person is different. He submits that although the name is similar as Ajfarul Shaikh, however, his father’s name is mentioned as Abdul Shaik, whereas, the father’s name of the informant is Abdul Khalek. He submits that in view of that, false affidavit has been filed only to obtain anticipatory bail. 5. In view of the above submissions and considering that even in reply the argument of the learned counsel for the informant has not been refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ajfarul Sheikh, who has been provided admission, is the another man, however, the allegations are there of taking amount of Rs.4,45,700/- and not providing admission to the informant and in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, as such, his prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. 6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 30th April, 2026 Ajay/