2025:JHHC:17448 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 7588 of 2024 Gopal Kumar Sinha, S/o Late Murari Prasad, R/o Mohalla Karni Bag, PO and PS Kunda, District Deoghar (Jharkhand) ….. Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Manoj Prasad, S/o late Nand Kishore Prasad, R/o PO + Ps Lesliganj, Palamau, Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Bhahadur Singh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Amrita Kumari, APP For the OP no.2 : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate ----- 06/01.07.2025: This is an application filed by the petitioner praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of sections 482 and 484 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the petitioner has been allegedly implicated in connection with Daltonganj Town PS Case No. 144 of 2023, for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 3. The learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 4. In compliance of order dated 24.6.2025, the Investigating Officer of this case is present in the court. He submits that earlier Investigating Officer of the case has issued notice to the petitioner but, since the petitioner did not appear, warrant of arrest has been issued against him. 5. To counter his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer but the Investigating Officer has not recorded his appearance. The petitioner has also given his statement before the Investigating Officer. 6. The learned APP and the learned counsel for the OP No.2 admit that there is statement of this petitioner in the case diary at paragraph 37 but it has not been mentioned as to how the statement reached the police station. 7. As per the IO, if the petitioner has sent his reply by registered post then 2025:JHHC:17448 the envelop must have been made part of the case diary, but, in this case no envelop is attached with the case diary, however, statement of the petitioner is there which prima facie suggests that the petitioner must have gone to the police station and got his statement recorded or given his written statement. 8. The allegation is that the petitioner has taken Rs. 41, 70,000/- from the informant for selling the land but the land was not sold rather only Rs.41,000/- was returned. 9. Considering the fact that the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and got his statement recorded and also the dispute related to sell and purchase of land, I am inclined to allow this petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the court below within three weeks from today and in the event of his surrender/arrest the learned court below is directed to enlarge him on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, in connection with Daltonganj Town PS Case No. 144 of 2023, subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be close relative of the petitioner and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his/her name or in the name of his/her ancestors in which he/she is having share and to that effect, he/she has to file an affidavit before the learned trial court indicating his/her share in the property, further the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer once in fifteen days and cooperate with the trial till submission of charge sheet. (ANANDA SEN, J. ) KNR/