2025:JHHC:13405 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2670 of 2024 ----- Mukesh Kumar, S/o Late Basanteshwari Prasad, R/o 85, Indrapuri Rad No.1, Raja General Store, Ratu Road, P.O.- Hehal, P.S.- Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Brajesh Kumar, S/o Siddheswar Prasad R/o Harmu Housing Colony, Sahajanand Chowk, P.O. & P.S.- Argora, District Ranchi … Opp. Party(s). WITH A.B.A. No. 2704 of 2024 ----- 1.Hemant Prasad, S/o Late Jagdish Prasad, R/o Village- Ratu Road, Near Kabristan Hehal, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi 2.Brajesh Kumar, S/o Late Basanteshwari Prasad, R/O- Village- 823/A, Tiril Road, St. Albert Vidyalaya, Kokar, P.O. + P.S. Sadar, Dist- Ranchi, Jharkhand .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). WITH A.B.A. No. 2705 of 2024 ----- 1.Anita Devi, W/o Brajesh Kumar 2.Kumar Sawan, S/o Brajesh Kumar, both R/o Village- 823/A, Tiril Road, St. Albert School, Kokar, VTC Bariatu, P.O.+P.S. Sadar, Dist- Ranchi, Jharkhand .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate Ms. Shabina Perveen, Advocate Mr. Aman Kumar Rahul, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, A.P.P. Mr. Satish Kumar Kehsri, A.P.P. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. For the O.P. : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, Advocate …...... 13/ 29.04.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant. 2. These anticipatory bail applications under Sections 438 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, have been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest for the offences registered under Sections 406, 420, 467,468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the case is pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi, in connection with Nagri P.S. Case No. 88 of 2023. 3. Petitioners in all these three Anticipatory Bail Applications are named in the FIR. Petitioners in A.B.A No.2705 of 2024 are the wife and sons respectively of the petitioner No.2 in A.B.A No. 2704 of 2024. 4. The instant case was initiated on the basis of a written report submitted by the informant, Brajesh Kumar, S/o Siddheswar Prasad. As per the allegations, the informant was in search of a plot of land for purchase when one Ashish Kumar Pandey showed him a piece of land bearing Khata No.01, Plot No. 1227, situated at Mauza Kotwasi, claiming it belonged to the petitioners. Upon verification of the documents online, the informant was satisfied with the ownership details and agreed to purchase 8 decimals of land in the name of his wife and 7 decimals in the name of his sister at the agreed rate of Rs. 3 lakh per decimal, making a total payment of Rs. 40,00,000/-. 5. However, it is alleged that accused persons deceitfully executed the registration deed in respect of Plot No.1130 instead of the agreed Plot No. 1227. When the informant later visited the said plot to commence boundary construction, he discovered that Plot No. 1130 do not belong to the accused persons. Upon demanding the return of the consideration amount, the informant was allegedly threatened by the accused. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in A.B.A No. 2670 of 2024 submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that after the execution of sale deed physical possession was given to the informant. He further submits that the petitioner was the bona- fide owner of the land before the execution of sale deed. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners in A.B.A No. 2704 of 2024 also submits that the plot no. 1130 was in the name of ancestor of the petitioners. He further submits that execution of sale deed is valid. He further submits that the informant has not paid full consideration amount. He submits that the allegations in the FIR is of civil nature and the same has been given the colour of criminal offence. He also submits there was mediation between the informant and the petitioner no.1 in the lower court pursuant to which he has paid Rs.3 lakhs to the informant. As per him the petitioners are having no criminal antecedents. Thus, he prays that the instant anticipatory bail needs to be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners in A.B.A No. 2705 of 2024 also submits that the sale deed was executed validly in favour of the elder sister and wife of the informant. As per him no offence is made out against the petitioners which is evident from the contents of FIR. He also submits that the plot no.1130 belonged to the petitioners, and the informant has not paid full consideration amount to the petitioners. 7. Opportunity was given to the State and opposite party to oppose the anticipatory bail applications, which the State and opposite party availed and opposed. 8. After going through the materials available on record I find that sale deed was executed in favour of the informant’s wife and son. Prima facie I am of the view that a civil dispute has been given a colour of Criminal offence. The issue is in respect of ownership of the plot No.1130. It was also the duty of the purchaser to verify the deed and its contents, which they failed. Thus, I am of the view that these are fit cases to grant anticipatory bail. Thus, these Anticipatory Bail applications stand allowed. 9. The petitioners, above named, are directed to surrender before the learned court below within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on the event of their surrender or arrest, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, 1st Class, in connection with Nagri P.S. Case No.88 of 2023, subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be a close relative of the petitioners and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his name or in the name of his ancestors in which he is having share and to that effect, he has to file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating his share in the property. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./