2026:JHHC:6301 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1391 of 2026 Md. Faiyaz Khan @ Faiyaz Ahmad @ Faiyaz Khan, aged about 35 years, son of Late Rayazuddin Khan, resident of Millat Colony, Bariatu Basti, P.O. & P.S. Bariatu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anura Kumar, Advocate Mr. Aman Dayal Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate --- 05/10th March 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No. 141 of 2022, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2089 of 2024 for the offence registered under Sections 420, 467, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas the charge-sheet has been submitted for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-cum-Special Judge PMLA, Ranchi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegation, there was creation of fake ownership with respect to property in the name of Pradeep Bagchi, by creating fake ownership in the name of Pradeep Bagchi and it was sold to M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd and in the said transaction, the petitioner played an active role and an amount of Rs. 90,000/- was paid by the petitioner to one Ankush Kumar. It has been alleged that the property belongs to Indian Army. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 20.08.2024 and the case is at the stage of evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the petitioner is the main accused in the case in creation of 2026:JHHC:6301 forged holding number in connection with the property belonging to Indian Army. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the allegation against the petitioner, who is alleged to be the person instrumental in creating fake holding number in the name of Pradeep Bagchi, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected. 5. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses during trial. 6. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure prompt production of the witnesses on the date as may be fixed by the learned trial court. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 10.03.2026 Uploaded On: Mukul/-