AJAY RAM vs STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 467, 468, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case is that the accused induced him to invest money in one "Swabhumika Agro Product Ltd." Jamtara with the assurance that after maturity period investors would be given thrice the amount of investment and accordingly the complainant and some others invested various amount ranging from Rs. 10,000/- to 30,000/- in the year 2009-2010 in lieu of which the accused gave written documents by which return of inflated amount was promised in the year 2017-18 but in or about October 2015 the complainant found the Jamtara office closed and hence this case has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has no concerned with the aforesaid company and he had made an accused on the basis of supervision note of the Dy. S.P.. It is also submitted that on earlier occasion the petitioner was made an accused in a similar type of case bearing Jamtara P.S. Case No. 119 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 316 of 2014 in which petitioner has been granted bail in B.A. No. 9451 of 2014, hence petitioner deserves the privilege the anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and he has filed the counter affidavit stating therein that para-38 of the case diary petitioner has admitted himself to be the Director of Swabhumika Enclave and associated to it from 2006 to 2008.

Taking all these facts, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.