( 2025:JHHC:17716 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1218 of 2025 ------ 1. Mahesh Oraon, aged about 31 years, S/O Bijla Oraon, R/O near Govt. School, Misirgonda, Lohra Kocha, PO – Gandhi Nagar, PS – Bartiatu, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. Laldeo Mahto, aged about 47 years, S/O Babulal Mahto, R/O Village – Chardi, PO & PS – Pithoria, District – Ranchi at present Misirgonda, PO – Gandhi Nagar, PS – Bariatu, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Mithu Kujur, aged about 31 years, S/O Bigna Kujur, R/O near Milan Chowk, Misirgonda, Kanke Road, PO – Kanke, PS – Gonda, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP For the Informant : Mr. Shubhashis Rashik Soren, Advocate : Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra, Advocate : Ms. Mrinalini Adela Tete, Advocate : Ms. Preeti Hembrom, Advocate : Ms. Singi. S. Denja, Advocate ----- 04/ 03rd July 2025 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have moved before this Court for apprehending their arrest in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No. 209 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 467, 420, 384, 385, 427, 447 as well as 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. The FIR has been lodged by the informant stating therein that father of the informant, namely, Bandhan Lakra has purchased 20 decimal of land from Bhagtu Oraon. The father, took peaceful possession of the land and thereafter this informant. It is further alleged that the descendents of Bhagtu Oraon are always creating hindrance and trying to encroach and dispossess the informant from the land in question. It is further alleged that they are also trying to extract money from her and trying to trespass over the land and ( 2025:JHHC:17716 ) 2 not allowing the informant to make construction rather these petitioners are illegally making some construction over the land in question which is purchased by the father of the informant. It is further alleged that because of the dispute, there was some altercation between the parties and physical assault also. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that the informant’s father has purchased only 20 decimal of land and the entire chunk of land is much bigger one out of which the petitioners had intended to make an agreement with the descendents of Bhagtu Oraon that to only for 20 decimals, which has no concern with the 20 decimals which has been purchased by the father of the informant. It is further stated that these petitioners are not the ancestors of Bhagtu Oraon. Petitioner No. 1 had only entered to an agreement with Sunny Oraon and Ajju Tirkey who is the descendent of Bhagtu Oraon. So far as the other two are concerned, they are friend of petitioner no. 1 and that is the reason they have been made accused. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that there was a title suit between father of the informant and the descendants of Bhagtu Oraon and the said suit was dismissed even First Appeal was also dismissed. Thus, the title over the land in question has been settled in favour of the father of the informant and thereafter, this informant became the title holder. On query, he submits that in the title suit, neither these petitioners nor the ancestors are the party. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is a dispute over the piece of land. The informant had definitely purchased 20 decimals of land by virtue of a sale deed. The petitioner no. 1 is claiming 20 decimals not by virtue of any sale deed rather by an agreement to sale which admittedly does not confer any right. Further from the argument of the ( 2025:JHHC:17716 ) 3 learned counsel for the petitioners, I find that there is a dispute in respect of the land in question and the holding of each of the parties as it has been submitted that the land is much bigger than 20 decimals. It is case of the petitioners that they are not at all interested with the 20 decimal of land which the informant / father has purchased. 8. Admittedly, also the petitioners were not party to the suit. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, it is clear that there is a land dispute and the petitioners are claiming only on the basis of an agreement to sale whereas the informant has a registered sale deed in her favour. Further, I find that the dispute is in respect to demarcation of the property which needs to be taken care in a civil proceeding. 9. Considering the facts of this case, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands allowed. 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.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Court of J.M.F.C. - XXI in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No. 209 of 2024, 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. 10. Further, the petitioners are directed to co-operate with the trial during investigation. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Aditi