Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25850 (JHR)

ABDULLAH KHAN v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./6437/2024 · 2025-06-13

Sri Ananda Sen

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:15560 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.6437 of 2024 ------ Abdullah Khan @ Abdulla Khan, S/o Late Kali Mullah Khan, R/o Sahibang, Harmu Road, Garikhana, P.O. Ranchi G.P.O., P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Vijay Laxmi @ Laxmi Devi, W/o Late Ganga Sagar Prasad, R/o Gandhi Road, Haldi Patti, Hanuman Mandir, Sewa Medical Hall, Babudih, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhansar, District Dhanbad. … … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Trishna Sagar, Advocate Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate For the State : Ms. Sushma Aind, A.P.P. Mr. Satya Narayan Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate ----- 05/ 13.06.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.8700 of 2023, for offences under Sections 406, 420, 120-B and 506 IPC. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had taken money to convey the land in favour of the complainant but in spite of taking Rs.35 lac, the land has not been conveyed. 4. Admittedly, from the argument of the parties, it transpires that the amount was lastly paid on 31.12.2019. Further, no suit under the Specific Performance Act has been filed. A complaint was filed in the year 2023 i.e. after the period of 2025:JHHC:15560 limitation. 5. Further, from the documents, I find that this case arises out of a complaint, where cognizance has already been taken and summons have been issued. 6. The case of this petitioner is squarely covered by Category-A of the classification made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773. 7. Thus, the petitioner should appear before the concerned Court and file the respective bond. 8. With the aforesaid observation, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant. Cp-3