Jharkhand High Court
Hemant Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand …. …. …. … on 6 January, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.7970 of 2024
------
Hemant Kumar .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kr. Jha, Advocate
: Mr. Mahavir Pd. Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Addl.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate
: Mr. Deepak Sahu, Advocate
------
Order No.03 Dated- 06-01-2025
Heard the parties.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant
of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Borio (J) P.S. Case No.440
of 2019 registered under Section 167, 193, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 420, 463, 464,
465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477(A) and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for grant of
privileges of anticipatory bail and the earlier prayer for grant of privileges of
anticipatory bail was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.06.2020 in
A.B.A. No.1614 of 2020.
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 forgery and cheating by obtaining a forged
income certificate concealing the material fact that his father is a driver in
Indian Railways and he used the forged certificate for applying for
scholarship from the welfare of Department of Government of Jharkhand. It
is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next
submitted that the petitioner has never used the forged income certificate.
Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of
anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for
the informant on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submit that keeping in view the
serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of having committed the
offence of forgery, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required
during the investigation of the case in order to find out the details of the case
but the petitioner is absconding and though, he withdrew the anticipatory
bail application on 16.06.2020, but still, he has remained at large and avoided
appearing before the police or being arrested. 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
committing forgery and cheating as well as the requirement of his custodial
interrogation as also his conduct in remaining at large over four years after
withdrawal of his earlier anticipatory bail application, this court is not
inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail application to the
petitioner. Therefore, 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.)
Abhiraj/