2025:JHHC:31487 --1-- A.B.A. No. 5940 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5940 of 2025 ---- 1. Shankar Lal Gupta, aged about 48 years, S/o Late Mohan Lal Gupta, resident of Dalpatti Church Road, PO – GPO, PS – Lower Bazar, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. Sunita Kumari Gupta, aged about 44 years, W/o Shankar Lal Gupta, resident of Dalpatti Church Road, PO – GPO, PS – Lower Bazar, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand .... Petitioners -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Prashant Kr. Shrivastava, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Advocate For the Informant :- Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate ---- 05/13.10.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the Informant. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Daily Market P.S. Case No.28 of 2023, for the alleged offences registered under Sections 323, 341, 427, 447, 384, 386, 387, 504, 506 and 120B of Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Ranchi. 3. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel appearing for the Informant submits that the counter affidavit is ready, however, the said has not been filed in the Registry as the matter was on the Board. 4. In view of his such submission the said counter affidavit is taken on record. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that 2025:JHHC:31487 --2-- A.B.A. No. 5940 of 2025 petitioner No.1 gave a written complaint to the CID on 03.10.2024 against the complainant/informant and pursuant to that a case has been registered being CID P.S. Case No.09 of 2025 dated 19.03.2025 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 470, 471, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code against the complainant/informant contained in Annexure-3. He further submits that during the investigation by the CID it was found that the sale deed bearing No.2117 dated 28.03.2022 which was executed by complainant (vendee) and vendor stands null and void as “no record found” regarding the deed. He then submits that petitioner No.1 got this information through Right to Information which was sent by the CID Department along with the investigation report contained in Annexure-4. He next submits that the legal heirs and successors of original landowner at Mouza – Konka, PS – Daily Market under Thana No.198, area 5.5 decimal, measuring a total area of 11.09 decimals, ward no.15, M.S. Plot No.122, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand is in the name of Renu Gupta & Ors. by way of executed sale deed in favour of petitioner No.2 and Tejkaran Jain being Sale Deed No.1622 dated 10.03.2022. He also submits that petitioner No.1 also executed a written agreement on 01.08.2022 with the co-accused Nos.7 to 10 of the land for the consideration amount of Rs.2,35,00,000/- in which Rs.1,10,00,000/- has already been given in advance consideration amount with regard to the Mouza – Konka, land being Plot No.122 and amount was paid to the original landlord. He then submits that petitioners have filed Original Suit No.843 of 2024 and 844 of 2024 pending before the competent Civil Court at Ranchi for cancellation of sale deed and for Specific Performance of Contract Act respectively. He submits that if a case is made out that is civil in nature 2025:JHHC:31487 --3-- A.B.A. No. 5940 of 2025 and false allegations are made of extortion. He also submits that the petitioner No.1 is a businessman and deals with plastic goods and petitioner No.2 is the housewife and even she has not been spared and false allegations are made of extortion. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that in the investigation it has revealed that the petitioners have gone on the spot and demanded the extortion. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Informant vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioners have gone to the spot which has been supported by eight witnesses and that has been stated in the counter affidavit. He also submits that Rs.50,00,000/- was demanded and out of that Rs.1,20,000/- has already been paid in cash by the petitioner which is the extortion amount. On these grounds, he submits that the anticipatory bail of the petitioners may kindly be rejected. 8. Considering that the petitioner No.2 is a housewife and the allegations are made against her that she has gone to the spot and demanded extortion amount and the petitioner No.1 is said to be businessman and deals with plastic goods and the petitioner has made complaint to the CID and pursuant to that CID has registered the case. There is agreement and for that the petitioner No.1 has also paid a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/- to the original owner with regard to the Plot No.122 and the petitioners have filed the Original Suit No.843 of 2024 for cancellation of the deed executed in favour of the informant and Original Suit No.844 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioner for specific performance. In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, I am 2025:JHHC:31487 --4-- A.B.A. No. 5940 of 2025 inclined to provide anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, the petitioners, above named, are hereby directed to surrender before the learned Court within three weeks from today, and in the event of their surrender/arrest, the petitioners, above named, shall be released on bail, 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 C.J.M., Ranchi in connection with Daily Market P.S. Case No.28 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 13.10.2025 Sangam/