IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3504 of 2024 ------ 1. Bhuneshwar Rana aged about 88 years, son of Late Laro Rana, resident of village-Bangrakala, Nawadih, P.O.-Bangrakala, P.S.- Birni, District-Giridih. 2. Lakhan Rana @ Lakhan Mistri aged about 49 years son of Sri Bhuneshwar Rana. Both are the resident of village-Bangrakala, Nawadih, P.O.- Bangrakala, P.S.-Birni, District-Giridih. .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Prayag Rana son of Late Neelkanth Rana, resident of village- Bangrakala, Tola Nawadih, P.O. + P.S. –Birni, District-Giridih. .... .... .... Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Addl.P.P. For the OP 2 : Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Advocate : Ms. Nanda Kumari, Advocate : Mr. Abhishek Kr. Sinha, Advocate ------ Order No.09 Dated- 07/03/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Birni P.S. Case No.43 of 2024 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 406, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners on the basis of forged documents have sold the land of the informant/opposite party no.2 to third person and forcibly occupied the land of the informant/opposite party no.2. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is submitted that the petitioners do not claim the ownership of the plot no.128; which has been purchased by the mother of the informant and there is no allegation of any entrustment of any property against the petitioners, hence, the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners and in the absence of any allegation against the petitioners of cheating or dishonestly inducing the informant or anyone else to part with any property, the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is also not made out. It is next submitted that the petitioners sold the land to one Kaushalya Devi bearing plot no.188 and not plot no.128. It is next submitted that the dispute at best is civil dispute and a cloak of criminal case has been given to a civil dispute to harass the petitioners. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, 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 today 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 C.J.M., Giridih in connection with Birni P.S. Case No.43 of 2024 with the condition that they will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish their mobile numbers and photocopy of the Aadhar Cards with an undertaking that they will not change their mobile numbers during the pendency of the case and further conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/