1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1711 of 2024 ------ Md. Salim, aged about 40 years, Son of Late Md. Kasim, Resident of Village- Masratu, P.O.- Rewali, P.S.- Katkamdag, Dist.- Hazaribag. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Md. Jamaluddin, Son of Late Md. Hamid Ali, Resident of Lepo Road, Suleman Colony, P.S.- Sadar, P.O.- Hazaribag, Dist.- Hazaribagh. .... .... .... Opposite Parties With A.B.A. No.2246 of 2024 ------ Md. Arif, aged about 43 years, son of Raiyasat, resident of Village Masratu, P.O. Rewali, P.S. Katkamdag, District Hazaribag .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Md. Jamaluddin, aged about 55 years, son of late Md. Hamid Ali, resident of Lepo Road, Suleman Colony, Hazaribag, P.O.- Hazaribag, P.S.- Sadar (Hazaribag), District Hazaribag .... .... .... Opposite Parties With A.B.A. No.2247 of 2024 ------ Tarnum Nisha @ Tarnlum Nisha, aged about 43 years, wife of Md. Arif, resident of Village Masratu, P.O. Rewali, P.S. Katkamdag, District Hazaribag .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Md. Jamaluddin, aged about 55 years, son of late Md. Hamid Ali, resident of Lepo Road, Suleman Colony, Hazaribag, P.O.- Hazaribag, P.S.- Sadar (Hazaribag), District Hazaribag .... .... .... Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate (Both in A.B.A. No.2246 of 2024 & A.B.A. No.2247 of 2024) 2 Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate (Both in A.B.A. No.1711 of 2024) For the State : Md. Fahad Allam, Addl.P.P (A.B.A. No.1711 of 2024 & A.B.A. No.2247 of 2024) Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, Addl.P.P. (A.B.A. No.2246 of 2024) For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate (In all A.B.A. No.1711 of 2024, A.B.A. No.2246 of 2024 & A.B.A. No.2247 of 2024) ------ Order No.12 Dated-29-01-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.1932 of 2023 instituted under Sections 414/420/467/468/471/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners of all these Anticipatory Bails Applications have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Since all these three Anticipatory Bails Applications have been filed with the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners of all these Anticipatory Bails Applications, in the same case, hence, these three Anticipatory Bails Applications are disposed of by this common order. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioner of A.B.A. No.1711 of 2024 namely Md. Salim is that he received Rs.36,54,000/- to sell a land to the informant. It is submitted that there is also allegation that the land actually belonged to Md. Arif- the petitioner of A.B.A. No.2246 of 2024 and there is also allegation that Md. Arif entered into an agreement for sale with Md. Salim- the petitioner of A.B.A. No.1711 of 2024. It is next submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner of A.B.A. No.2247 of 2024 is that Md. Arif- the petitioner of A.B.A. No.2246 of 2024 has sold the land to Tarnum Nisha @ Tarnlum Nisha- the petitioner of A.B.A. No.2247 of 2024. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner of A.B.A. No.1711 of 2024 is false. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Md. Arif- the petitioner of A.B.A. No.2246 of 2024 and Tarnum Nisha @ Tarnlum Nisha- the petitioner of A.B.A. No.2247 of 2024 submits that there is no allegation 3 of entrustment of any money either to Md. Arif or Tarnum Nisha @ Tarnlum Nisha in the complaint or in the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant. It is next submitted that there is no allegation against either Md. Arif or Tarnum Nisha @ Tarnlum Nisha that they have cheated or dishonestly induced the complainant to part with any property and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 420 is not made out against the said petitioners even if the allegations made in the complaint are considered to be true in their entirety. It is then submitted that there is absolutely no allegation against the said petitioners of having created any false document and in the absence of the same, none of the offences punishable under Sections 467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the said petitioners. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no allegation against the said petitioners of assisting in concealment of stolen property and in the absence of that, the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out. It is then submitted that the allegations against the said petitioners are false. It is also submitted that the dispute between the parties is at best a civil dispute and a cloak of criminal offence has been given to the purely civil dispute. It is lastly submitted that said petitioners undertake to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the said petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner namely Md. Salim of A.B.A. No.1711 of 2024 draws attention of this Court to the statement of the enquiry witness No.1 namely Md. Salam and submits that the witness of the complainant himself has categorically stated that the complainant paid all the money to Md. Arif- the petitioner of A.B.A. No.2246 of 2024 and that absolves the petitioner of A.B.A. No.1711 of 2024 of being entrusted with the money. It is next submitted that the petitioner namely Md. Salim of A.B.A. No.1711 of 2024 undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner of A.B.A. No.1711 of 2024 namely Md. Salim be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel 4 for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that it is the case of the complainant and the complainant has also stated in his solemn affirmation that all the money was paid by him to Md. Salim; but true it is that one of his enquiry witnesses being the enquiry witness No.1 has inadvertently stated that the complainant entrusted all the money to Md. Arif but such departure from the case of the complainant by single enquiry witness of the complainant certainly does not demolish the case of the complainant. It is next submitted that an agreement has been executed by both Md. Salim and Md. Arif wherein they have admitted that they have taken money and promised to repay the same. It is next submitted that page-139 of the counter-affidavit shows that cash cheque was paid to Md. Arif to the extent of Rs.6,50,000/- and Md. Salim has given in writing in a page annexed with the agreement, of receiving certain amount on different dates. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations made in the complaint, the statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses goes to show that this is a case of violation of the contract entered into between the parties for selling the land to the complainant. There is contradiction in the claim of the complainant made in the complaint vis-à-vis the documents which have been filed in the counter-affidavit in this Anticipatory Bail Application as well as the statement of the enquiry witnesses and the statement on the solemn affirmation and the case is basically a dispute of civil nature. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below within six weeks from the date of the order and in the event of their arrest or surrendering, they will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial 5 Magistrate-1st Class, Hazaribag in connection with Complaint Case No.1932 of 2023 with the condition that they will co-operate with the trial of the case and further conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/