( 2025:JHHC:30158 ) --1-- A.B.A. No. 4034 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4034 of 2025 ---- 1. Sheikh Muslim, aged about 65 years, son of late Sheikh Hanif 2. Md. Rafique, aged about 53 years, son of late Sheikh Jamaluddin Both are residents of Village-Jhalakdiha, P.O & P.S- Bengabad, District-Giridih .... Petitioners -- Versus -- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Pradeep Kumar Saw, son of Jitan Sao, resident of Village- Jamuatand, P.O & P.S-Khukhra, District-Giridih .... Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate For the O.P No.2 :- Mr. P.K Mukhopadhyay, Advocate ---- 09/25.09.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 602 of 2023, for the alleged offences registered under Sections 420 of IPC, pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C, Giridih. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and the case has been filed in the nature of the complaint case. He submits that the allegations are made that agreement to sell was made between the ( 2025:JHHC:30158 ) --2-- A.B.A. No. 4034 of 2025 petitioner and the complainant and the same was not executed and the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance under section 420 of IPC. He further submits that in terms of the agreement, the rest of the consideration amount was not paid by the complainant and as such the sale deed was not executed. He next submits that the case is civil in nature and the criminal colour has been given in the form of complaint case filed before the learned Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that case is arising out of the complaint case. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Complainant vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that amount of Rs. 12,90,500/- has been taken in advance and in spite of that the execution of deed has not been made in favour of the complainant. 6. It is an admitted position that the petitioners and the complainant have entered into an agreement for sale of the land. In course of the argument a query was made by the Court to the learned counsel for the complainant and in reply he has pointed out that total consideration amount was Rs. 60 lakhs and it is the case of the petitioner that rest of the amount has not been paid and in view of that execution has not been made. Prima facie, it appears that it is a case of specific performance, of contract wherein complaint case has been lodged. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, the petitioners, above named, are hereby directed to surrender before the learned Court within three weeks from today, ( 2025:JHHC:30158 ) --3-- A.B.A. No. 4034 of 2025 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 J.M.F.C, Giridih, in connection with Complaint Case No. 602 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Abha/