( 2025:JHHC:33140 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2663 of 2024 Dinesh Kumar Vagadia @ Dinesh Kumar Bagaria, son of Natwarlal Vagadia, aged about 62 years, resident of Gokulkunj, Road No.1, Contractor Area, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand-831001 ...... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rajeev Ranjan, son of Rammurti Sinha, resident of Sukhi Bhawan, Khargajhar, P.O. and P.S. Telco, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum .…. … Opposite Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 2664 of 2024 1. Geeta Vagadia @ Geeta Bagaria @ Gita Vagadia, aged about 58 years, wife of Dinesh Kumar Vagadia @ Dinesh Kumar Vagadia 2. Vivek Vagadia @ Vivek Bagaria aged about 33 years, son of Dinesh Kumar Vagadia @ Dinesh Kumar Bagaria 3. Viraj Vagadia @ Viraj Bagaria, aged about 32 years, son of Dinesh Kumar Vagadia @ Dinesh Kumar Bagaria, All resident of Gokulkunj, Road No.1, Contractor Area, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand, 831001 ...... … Petitioner Versus 3. The State of Jharkhand 4. Rajeev Ranjan, son of Rammurti Sinha, resident of Sukhi Bhawan, Khargajhar, P.O. and P.S. Telco, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum .…. … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners :Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate Mrs. Sonam, Advocate Mr. Azam, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. (through VC) : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl. P.P. (in respective cases) For the O.P. No.2 : Mrs. Neeharika Mazumdar, Advocate 03/ 06.11.2025: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsels for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. 2. In both the petitions prayer has been made for modification/extension of time in order dated 28.02.2024 passed in A.B.A. No. 8876/2022 and A.B.A. No. 8573/2022 in connection with Chandil P.S. Case No. 63 of 2022, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Chandil. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases submits ( 2025:JHHC:33140 ) that voluntarily submission was made on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners will return the amount to the informant and in view of that anticipatory bail was granted and six months time was allowed to deposit the amount. He further submits that intentions of the petitioners are there to return the said amount and efforts have been made and out of three crores, a sum of Rs. one crore twenty one lakh and fifty thousand has already been returned to the informant which has been disclosed in the supplementary affidavit. He further submits that after filing of the aforesaid supplementary affidavit further Rs. six lakh has been returned to the informant. He further submits that efforts have been made to return the amount and in view of that further six months time may be allowed to return the rest of the amount to the informant. 4. Learned counsel for the informant is not disputing the fact that Rs. one crore twenty one lakh and fifty thousand has already been returned to the informant and further Rs. six lakh has been returned to the informant. She further submits that outer limit for further payment five months time may kindly be allowed. 5. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and informant and further considering that Bonafide intention of the petitioners is there to return the remaining amount, further five months time from today is extended to petitioners to return the remaining amount. 6. Accordingly, order dated 28.02.2024 passed in A.B.A. No. 8876/2022 and A.B.A. No. 8573/2022 in connection with Chandil P.S. Case No. 63 of 2022, is modified to that effect. 7. Both the Cr.M.Ps are allowed and disposed of. Dt.06.11.2025 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-