2025:JHHC:12759 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5441 of 2024 Saddam Hussain, S/o Md. Idu, R/o Dangardih, village Kapali, PO Kapali and PS Chandil, Dobo, Dstt Seraikela-Kharsawan (Jharkhand) ….. Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Shahin Begum, W/o Mohd. Nazim Ansari, R/o Holding No. 103, Block No.2, Cross Road No.3 Shastrinagar, Kadma, PO and PS Kadma, Town Jamshedpur, Distt.East singhbhum Jharkhand. ….. Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, SPP For the OP no.2 : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate ----- 03/29.04.2025: This anticipatory bail application has have been filed by the petitioner praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of sections 482 and 484 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the petitioner has been allegedly implicated in connection with Chandil PS case no. 244 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under sections 383,415,464,504 and 34 of the IPC (later on sections 384,420,467,468 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was added), pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Chandil. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the OP No.2 and the learned counsel for the State. 3. The learned APP and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the OP No.2 have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 4. As per allegations the informant purchased some land from accused no.1 though the said land could not be sold as the same belongs to a member of scheduled tribe/scheduled caste but the same was sold by the accused no.1. It is further alleged that when the informant was making some construction over the land, this petitioner forcibly entered over the land, along with four unknown persons and threatened the informant and her husband of dire consequences unless they pay Rs. 7,00,000/- to them by way of extortion. The complainant and her husband did not pay the amount then again accused no.3 tried to forcefully dispossess them. 2025:JHHC:12759 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is purely civil in nature. The land could not have been sold and the allegation of threatening is of the year 2024. 6. The learned counsel for the OP No.2 submits that the entire occurrence can be bifurcated in two parts. The first is selling of the land by the accused No.1 who was not authorized to sell the said land as the same belongs to a member of scheduled tribe and the second part of the allegation is that when the informant was constructing house over the land, this petitioner came and tried to extort money from the informant. Further he submits that there are three criminal antecedents against the petitioner which are under Arms Act, extortion and other criminal offences. 7. After hearing the parties I find that the allegation against the petitioner is of extortion. The allegation of selling of land is not against the petitioner. It is alleged that this petitioner has demanded money from the informant when he was constructing his house. Further there are three criminal cases pending against the petitioner. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find this case fit for grant of anticipatory bail. 9. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed. IA No. 4499 of 2025 10. Since the final order has been passed in this case, the present Interlocutory Application became infructuous. Hence, it is disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J. ) KNR/