ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Mandu (W.B.) P.S. Case No. 182 of 2022 instituted under Sections 467/468/420/506 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail. 3. As per F.I.R., allegation is that the present petitioner is a businessman engaged in Real Estate, who received Rs. 60 lacs through cheque and cash on different dates for getting the informant’ son engaged in the business of Real Estate. It is alleged that the informant has been retired from service of Tata Steel, West Bokaro and had received huge amount of retiral dues which has been cheated by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that around 21-22 lacs has been given to the petitioner and the petitioner has also provided land to the son of the informant for starting the Real Estate business. It is further submitted that petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and will not indulge in tampering with prosecution evidence and will abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court in the matter of granting anticipatory bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Addl.P.P as well as learned counsel appearing for the O. P. No. 2 have vehemently opposed the payer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 6. It appears that there is direct allegation of taking huge amount from the informant in the name of engaging to the Real Estate business to the son of the informant. It further appears that the petitioner has got three other criminal antecedents of similar nature although in those cases he is on bail but considering the nature and the gravity of offence and the material showing the direct involvement of the petitioner along with criminal background, I am not inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.