IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.4827 of 2024 ------ Ravi Ranjan Sahu, aged about 32 years, son of Bhola Sahu, resident of Dardag, Chakla, P.O. + P.S.-Ormanjhi, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rajnish Kumar Singh, s/o Late Bibhash Chandra Singh, R/o Naya Bermo, P.O. & P.S.-Bermo, Dist.-Bokaro. .... .... .... Opposite Parties With A.B.A. No.4795 of 2024 ------ Bhola Sahu, aged about 64 years, son of Late Ramdeo Sahu, resident of Dardag, Chakla, P.O.+ P.S.-Ormanjhi, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rajnish Kumar Singh, s/o Late Vibhash Chandra Singh, R/o Naya Bermo, P.S.-Bermo, Dist.-Bokaro. .... .... .... Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr.Advocate : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl.P.P. : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl.P.P. For the OP2 : Mr. Suraj Verma, Advocate : Mr. Harsh Chandra, Advocate ------ Order No.07 Dated- 20/03/2025 Heard the parties. Since both these anticipatory bail applications have been filled with the same prayer, hence, these anticipatory bail applications are disposed of by this common order. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Ormanjhi P.S. Case No.100 of 2023 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 379, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons committed extortion and committed theft and there is also allegation against the petitioners of committing forgery and using forged documents as genuine. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the allegation of demand of extortion against the petitioners is on 02.03.2018, but the FIR was lodged on 29.09.2023 and there is no explanation furnished as to what was the reason of delay of more than five years in lodging the FIR. It is next submitted that the second allegation is of 16.09.2023 and in respect of the same also; there is an unexplained delay of about 13 days in lodging the FIR. It is next submitted that it has not been specifically mentioned as to which document has been forged by the petitioners and in what manner. It is next submitted that there is Original Title Suit No.672 of 2020 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Ranchi between the father of Vasim Ansari, who allegedly accompanied the informant to the place of occurrence on 16.09.2023, namely Islam Ansari and between Rajkumari Singh-the vendor of the petitioner of A.B.A. No.4795 of 2024 as Rajkumari Singh has sold the land to the petitioner of A.B.A. No.4795 of 2024 namely Bhola Sahu vide registered sale deed no.930. It is next submitted that the father of the Vasim Ansari namely Islam Ansari and the father of Samshad Ansari namely Rafik Ansari along with two others have sold the land to the vendor of the said Bhola Sahu namely Rajkumari Singh vide registered sale deed no.4130/3548 dated 22.02.2010. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is at best a civil dispute. It is next submitted that the petitioner of A.B.A. No.4827 of 2024 namely Ravi Ranjan Sahu has been acquitted in Ormanjhi P.S. Case No.174 of 2020. It is then submitted that so far as the contention of the informant that Rajkumari Devi has executed the sale deed but not Rajkumari Singh is concerned, the same will not amount to forgery, in the absence of any allegation that Rajkumari Devi impersonated for someone. It is also submitted that the petitioners undertake that they will not annoy or disturb the informant or his family members in any manner during the pendency of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case and to furnish sufficient security including cash security. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no2. on the otherhand vehemently oppose 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 depositing Rs.10,000/- each as cash security and 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., Ranchi in connection with Ormanjhi P.S. Case No.100 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 they will not annoy or disturb the informant or his family members in any manner during the pendency of the case and further conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/