IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 481 of 2025 1. Saddab Hussain, aged about 30 years, son of Md. Jalil, resident of Village Jhalpo, P.O. and P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma (Jharkhand) 2. Mobin Akhtar @ Md. Mobin, aged about 47 years, son of Late Abdul Miyan, resident of Village Bekobar, P.O. and P.S. Koderma, District Koderma (Jharkhand) 3. Arun Kumar Gupta, aged about 30 years, son of Kewal Sao, resident of village- Chandedih, P.O. &P.S.- Koderma, Dist.- Koderma (Jharkhand) … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Md. Mustakim, aged about 76 years, S/o Late Dodi Mian, R/o Bekobar, Tola- Ambatand, P.O.- Bekobar, P.S. & Dist.- Koderma … Opp. Parties Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahil , Adv. For the State : Ms. Amrita Kumari , Addl.PP For the opp. party no. 2 : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Adv. 02 / 28.01.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 176 of 2023 registered under sections 323/406/417/504/147 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in furtherance of common intention with the co- accused persons, ensured that the co-accused Madina Khatoon executes a power of attorney in their favour, in respect of the land belonging to Madina Khatoon; even though Madina Khatoon, entered into an agreement for sale with the complainant in respect of the same land, in respect of which, the said power of attorney has been executed by Madina Khatoon. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and those allegations are general and omnibus in nature. There is no allegation that anyone impersonated as Madina Khatoon. It is next submitted that the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the trial of the case and they undertake not to annoy or disturb the informant in any manner during pendency of the case hence, the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioners shall be released on bail and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Koderma in connection with Complaint Case No. 176 of 2023 subject to the condition that the petitioners will not annoy or disturb the informant in any manner during pendency of the case and will co-operate with the trial of the case along with the other conditions laid down under section 482 (2) of BNSS, 2023. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-