Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P No.3967 of 2023 Morha Toppo @ Mohra Toppo aged about 65 years son of Late Kadiya @ Kariya Toppo @ Oraon, resident of village-Baram, P.O. Mahilong, P.S.-Tatisilwai, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-835103. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Mangra Toppo, aged about 78 years, son of Late Kode Toppo. 3. Sudhir Toppo, aged about 68 years, son of Late Kode Toppo, 4. Pradeep Toppo, aged about 38 years, son of Mangra Toppo, 5. Krishna Toppo, aged about 28 years, son of Sudhir Toppo, 6. Sunil Toopo, aged about 37 years, son of Sudhir Toppo. From Sr. Nos. 2 to 6 are resident of Baram Kunwa Toli, P.O. Mahilong, P.S. Tatisilway, District-Ranchi-835103 (Jharkhand) … Opposite Parties Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushalendra Prasad, Adv. For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P. Order No.06/Dated- 14.02.2025 1. Heard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. Instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred for quashing of the bail order dated 11.10.2023 passed in A.B.P. No. 2440/2023 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-III, Ranchi, whereby and where under, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-III, Ranchi had been pleased to allow the A.B.P. No. 2440/2023 and enlarge the opposite parties on bail by furnishing the bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the opposite parties have taken bail order in their favour representing the false statement about being themselves descendants of original Raiyat. This case pertains to commission of offence under Sections 420, Page | 2 467, 468, 471 of the I.P.C. pertaining to dispute about landed property. 4. It appears that learned A.P.P. appearing for State has opposed the prayer raised on behalf of the petitioner and defended the impugned order which is based on consideration of undisputed facts and the present petitioner is raising a disputed fact which has to be raised at the time of trial. 5. Considering the same, the rival submissions of the parties and impugned order, it appears that one F.I.R. being Tatisilway P.S. Case No. 25/2023 dated 04.04.2023 has been lodged at the instance of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420/467/468, 471, 34 of the I.P.C. which the allegation inter-alia is that accused (opposite party nos. 2-6) representing themselves the descendants of petitioner’s ancestors, are selling the land of the petitioner, hence, I find no illegality or infirmity in the order which required any interference by this court. Hence, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands dismissed. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Amar/-