IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.4412 of 2024 ------ 1. Upendra Mahto @ Upendra Prasad @ Saheba Mahto, aged about 52 years, son of Late Jagdish Mahto; 2. Rameshwar Mahto, aged about 72 years, son of Late Chetlal Mahto @ Chatlal Mahto; 3. Dharam Mahto, aged about 70 years, son of Late Hemlal Mahto; 4. Nemdhari Mahto, aged about 71 years, son of Late Dipan Mahto; 5. Jageshwar Mahto, aged about 50 years, son of Late Dewali Mahto @ Deewali Mahato; 6. Nageshwar Mahto, aged about 54 years, son of Late Dewali Mahto @ Deewali Mahato; 7. Laxman Mahto, aged about 40 years, son of Late Dewali Mahto @ Deewali Mahato; 8. Shambhu Mahto, aged about 36 years, son of Late Chhakan Mahto; 9. Daulat Mahto @ Daulat Kumar Mahto @ Daulat Kumar, aged about 28 years, son of Late Chhakan Mahto; 10. Kailash Mahto @ Kulash Mahto, aged about 44 years, son of Late Chhakan Mahto; All are residents of Village Dari, P.O.-Kharni, P.S.-Simariya, District-Chatra. .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Bandana Sinha, Addl.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwary, Advocate : Mr. Manjeet Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No.08 Dated- 18/02/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No.196 of 2023 instituted under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B 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 have forged the certified copy of the sale deed dated 16.07.1902 purported to have been executed by Hari Mahto in favour of Lodhar Mahto and the decree has been passed in favor of the petitioners on the basis of the forged documents by the concerned Court. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the petitioners filed the Original (Title) Suit No.02 of 2011 in the year 2011 itself and the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioners and the petitioners filed Civil Appeal No.01 of 2018 and vide judgment dated 13.12.2022, the learned District Judge-III, Chatra held that the learned Trial court has committed error in dismissing the suit and decreed the suit of the petitioners after setting aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court and in the said judgment, the learned District Judge-III, Chatra has also considered the sale deed executed by Hari Mahto in favour of Lodhar Mahto. It is next submitted that there is an inordinate delay in filing the complaint case which upon being referred to police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., this FIR has been registered. It is next submitted that dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute. 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., Chatra in connection with Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No.196 of 2023 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/