( 2025:JHHC:34454 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 6512 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6512 of 2025 1. Ila Singh, aged about 65 years, wife of Late Ravindra Kumar Singh 2. Ranu Singh, aged about 40 years, daughter of Late Ravindra Kumar Singh, Both are residents of Ila House, Shiv Niketan Bampas Town, Deoghar, P.O. Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand … Petitioners -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, son of Late Dinesh Prasad Sinha, resident of Pokhna Tilha, B.N. Jha Path, Deoghar, P.O. Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar (Town), District- Deoghar, Jharkhand … Opposite Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Prakash Kumar Sahay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mahto, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Nikhil Choubey, Advocate ----- 02/19.11.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.303 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 316(2) and 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that an agreement was reached between the petitioners and opposite party no.2 for sale of certain land. He further submits that a sum of Rs.32 Lakhs have been received by the petitioners for executing the sale-deed, however, total consideration amount was Rs.2 Crores and rest of the amount has not been paid and in view of that, the sale-deed was not executed. He then submits that the agreement was reached in the year 2022 and the FIR has been lodged in the year 2025. He next submits that the petitioners are ready to return the sum of Rs.32 Lakhs to opposite party no.2, which has been received by the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the allegations are there of not executing the sale-deed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 submits that for the same land, another agreement was entered between one Gopal Prasad Singh ( 2025:JHHC:34454 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 6512 of 2025 and Pankaj Kumar Sinha, who is opposite party no.2 in the present case. He further submits that in view of that, a cheating is made out and, as such, the prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 6. It is an admitted position that for non-execution of the sale-deed pursuant to the agreement of the year 2022, the present FIR has been lodged in the year 2025 and total consideration amount is said to be Rs.2 Crores, whereas, Rs.32 Lakhs has been paid by the informant and it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are ready to return the sum of Rs.32 Lakhs to the informant/opposite party no.2. Prima facie, it appears that if any case is made out, that is of specific performance. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the above-named petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned Court within three weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrender, they shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.303 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 19th November, 2025 Ajay/