2026:JHHC:14943 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 7264 of 2025 1. Indrajit Kr. Sethi, aged about 72 years, Son of Late Hiralal Sethi, resident of Nilini Seth Road, Barabazar, Kolkata, P.O. & P.S. Barabazar, District Kolkata, West Bengal. 2. Rajesh Sethi @ Rajesh Kumar Sethi, aged about 68 years, Son of Late Hiralal Sthi, resident of Nilini Seth Road, Barabazar, Kolkata, P.O. & P.S. Barabazar, District Kolkata, West Bengal … … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate : Mr. S. Ranjan, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate : Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate --- 11/14.05.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. The petitioner No.1 namely Indrajit Kr. Sethi and petitioner No.2 namely Rajesh Sethi @ Rajesh Kumar Sethi both S/o: Late Hiralal Sethi are apprehending arrest in connection with A.C.B. Hazaribagh P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025 for the offence registered under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), said to be pending in the court of learned Special Judge, A.C.B. Hazaribagh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made the following submissions:- a) The petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and at best it is a case of civil dispute. b) As per the allegations, the property involved in the present case are lease hold land (Khas Mahal Land) of government situated in the District of Hazaribagh and for the purposes of renewal of 2026:JHHC:14943 2 lease in favour of the family members of the petitioners, including the petitioners, an amount of Rs. 1 crore and odd has already been deposited with the government and it is the government who granted the required sanction for transfer of the Khas Mahal Land. c) He has further submitted that initially the property was standing in the name of predecessor in interest of the petitioners as a Khas Mahal lease property and it was also renewed and thereafter the predecessor in interest transferred the property to the deity and became the Sebayat and this was done after due permission of the concerned authority. However, the said transfer to Sebayat was cancelled by virtue of a registered deed of the year 1951 and ultimately the lease under khas mahal was renewed in the names of the successors of the original allottee. d) Preliminary enquiry was started in the present case way back in the year 2015 alleging wrongful transfer of the government land (khas mahal land) and First Information Report was reinstituted on 06.08.2025 and with the passage of time the gravity of offence lost its seriousness in view of the fact that Rs.1.09 crore and odd was deposited with the government as back as on 15.04.2010 for renewal of lease. e) At best it could be a case of civil law, but no criminality is involved in the present case as the required procedure was duly followed. f) The petitioners are senior citizens aged 72 years and 68 years respectively and therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail of these petitioners stands on different footing altogether. g) Learned counsel has also submitted that there is neither any chance of absconding nor there is any chance of disposal of any movable or immovable properties by the petitioners and there is no need for any custodial interrogation of the petitioners. 2026:JHHC:14943 3 h) Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioners are the heirs of the original lessee and they have acted as per their rights and no criminal case is made out against the petitioners. i) It has been further submitted that as per the counter affidavit which was filed earlier, it was stated by the opposite party that petitioners have been non-cooperative with the investigation and for that purpose statement has been made in paragraph 30, 31 and 32 that the petitioners and co-accused persons have given incorrect address in their anticipatory bail applications and therefore, they have not co-operating with the investigation. The learned counsel has also referred to the order passed by this Court on 07.05.2026 wherein the arguments of learned counsel for Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) was recorded with respect to incorrect address and also the submission that the the petitioners had gone traceless and the notices under section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita could not be served. j) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on 07.05.2026 the matter was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for ACB to file supplementary counter-affidavit bringing on record the documents/materials to show that the ACB had made attempt to trace out the petitioners at the given address and they were unable to find them out and also the fact that the notices were sent and they returned unserved. It was also open to the petitioners to file supporting documents to show that the address disclosed by the petitioners in the anticipatory bail application is correct. k) Learned counsel then referred to the supplementary affidavit filed in this case which is dated 12.05.2026 and has submitted that in the document annexed to the supplementary affidavit the address of the petitioners including in the Aadhar Card has shown as “S/o: Hira Lal Sethi, 70, NALINI SETT ROAD, Barabazar, Kolkata, Barabazar, West Bengal, 700007”. A copy of electricity bill in connection with the said premises has also 2026:JHHC:14943 4 been annexed. On the basis of supplementary affidavit, it is alleged that the statement made by the opposite party in their counter affidavit that the petitioners have given incorrect address in their anticipatory bail application is itself not true. l) The learned counsel has then referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2017) 5 SCC 218 [Manoranjana Sinh @ Gupta vs. Central Bureau of Investigation] dealing with grant of bail to Saradha chit fund scam and has submitted that the principle for grant of bail has been enumerated in paragraph 16 of the judgment wherein it has been held that while considering grant of bail deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person would stand his trial when called upon and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and found guilty. It has also been held that detention in custody of undertrial prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. m) Learned counsel has then referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1 [Sushila Aggarwal and Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another] and has referred to paragraph 52 of the said judgment and has submitted that the principles to be considered for grant of anticipatory bail has been laid down therein. It has been held that while the power of granting anticipatory bail is not ordinary, at the same time, its use is not confined to exceptional cases. It has been held 52.7 as under: - 52.7. There is no “inexorable rule” that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the applicant is the target of mala fides. There are several relevant considerations to be factored in, by the court, while considering whether to grant or refuse anticipatory bail. Nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the accused's presence not being secured during trial; a reasonable apprehension that the witnesses might be 2026:JHHC:14943 5 tampered with, and “the larger interests of the public or the State” are some of the considerations. A person seeking relief (of anticipatory bail) continues to be a man presumed to be innocent. ………………….. n) Learned counsel has submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the petitioners may be enlarged on bail and they are ready to appear before the authority on any date and time as may be fixed by this Court for the purposes of investigation. o) The learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed on 25th March, 2026 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2797 of 2026 [Sudhir Kumar Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand], who was the power of attorney holder of the petitioners, and has submitted that his anticipatory bail application was rejected by this Court in A.B.A. No. 5781 of 2025 vide order dated 20.01.2026 and before the Hon’ble Supreme Court one interim order dated 18.02.2026 was passed whereby the petitioner of the said case has been directed to co-operate with the investigation and ultimately when he co-operated with the investigation, the interim relief granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was confirmed and the appeal was allowed. Learned counsel has submitted another co-accused namely Bijay Pratap Singh, who was also the power of attorney holder was taken into custody. His anticipatory bail was also rejected by this Court in A.B.A. No.5781 of 2025 and subsequently he was arrested and his regular bail application was considered and rejected by this court. However, he has been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. Learned counsel for the ACB while opposing the prayer has submitted that – I. Sufficient material has already been placed on record to show the complicity of the petitioners in the alleged offence. It has been submitted that it is not a case of pure civil dispute rather 2026:JHHC:14943 6 the entire sequence of events as mentioned in the counter affidavit, which is based on materials collected, would reveal that the petitioners are to be prosecuted. II. Initially khas mahal lease was granted in favour of Ganpat Rai Sarawgi. In the year 1941, Ganpat Rai Sarawgi by an indenture of settlement settled the same in favour of deity “Sri Sri Mahavir Ji” and declared himself to be the Sebayat and this was done after due permission from the competent authority which was accorded way back in the year 1948 and the lease was valid up to 1978. In the meantime, Ganpat Rai Sarawgi died and his two sons namely Panna Lal Sethi and Hira Lal Sethi assumed the role of sebayat and an application was filed by Panna Lal Sethi for renewal of lease scheduled to be expired in the year 1978. III. At the time of renewal an attempt was made to get the lease renewed/transferred in favour of individual names i.e. Panna Lal Sethi and Hira Lal Sethi instead of in the name of deity and in support of that a deed of 1951 which was the alleged deed of cancellation of the trust/settlement executed by Ganpat Rai Sarawgi in 1941. The said deed of the year 1951 itself was forged and fabricated document and even otherwise such document which was unilaterally executed was not permissible that too without the permission of the Deputy Commissioner- cum-District Magistrate and therefore, such deed have no value in the eye of law. IV. However, in the application for renewal of lease, the authorized official recorded that the lease be renewed in the name of deity and there was no provision under Khas mahal land to transfer the land in the favour of individual names of sebayat and the lease deed was renewed for further period of 30 years, up till 2008 and annual rent was also fixed in the name of deity which was paid up to 31.03.2008 and the name of Hira Lal Sethi and Panna Lal Sethi were entered as in the capacity of sebayats. 2026:JHHC:14943 7 V. In the year 1992-93 an application was filed seeking permission to transfer 40 decimal of land out of 2.75 acres in favour of one Sheo Bachan Singh and four others and ultimately a Transfer Permission Case No. 29 of 1992-93 vide order dated 01.07.2000 an application seeking permission for grant of transfer was rejected and a direction was also given for resumption of the entire land. VI. 4 persons were substituted as Sebayats in the government record, whose details have been mentioned in paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit, and out of them two persons were the present two petitioners. VII. Against the aforesaid order dated 01.07.2000 by which the petition seeking transfer was rejected and land was directed to be resumed, a writ petition was filed being CWJC No. 4200 of 2000. However, this Court vide judgment dated 26.07.2005 held that Successor-in-interest or any person who took the charge of sebayats have no right to transfer the land in favour of any other person and refusal to grant permission for transfer of leasehold land was upheld. However, the order to resume the leasehold property was set aside. VIII. Further, since the lease was expiring in the year 2008, an application was made for renewal of lease by Basanti Kumari Sethi, which was registered as Case No. 85 of 2007-08 and prayer was made for renewal of lease for the period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2038 and despite the fact that the lease was standing in the name of the deity, a proposal was moved in the file for substituting the original sebayat with the surviving sebayat. IX. The allegation is that the file was moved only for the purpose of substitution of names of sebayats, but the government official, in connivance with the sebayats and on the basis of alleged cancellation deed of the year 1951, proposed to delete the name of the lessee “Sri Sri Mahavir Ji” from Register-II and substitute 2026:JHHC:14943 8 the same in Register-II in favour of individual names of sebayats in the individual capacity and the proposal was given to the Khas Mahal Officer on 08.12.2008 to the Additional Collector and the Deputy Commissioner on 08.12.2008 and on the same date the approval was granted on the said proposal. X. Further allegation is that in the aforesaid manner, the lease hold property which was standing in the name of the deity was permitted to be converted into individual lease in favour of the Sebayats and this was done inspite of the earlier order passed by this Court in writ jurisdiction and by further manipulating the register II. Thereby, the property standing in the name of deity was manipulated to be in the name of the sebayats in the individual capacity. XI. Further the allegation is that the proposal has made thereafter through the power of attorney holder namely Vijay Pratap Singh and Sudhir Pratap Singh for transfer of 2.2289 acres of land in favour of 23 persons whose details have been mentioned in the counter affidavit and on that basis transfer permission case No. 1 of 2009-10 was registered and one Binod Chandra Jha in connivance with sebayats and the power of attorney holder namely Vijay Pratap Singh and Sudhir Pratap Singh forwarded the file for transfer of land and ultimately the Deputy Commissioner granted the approval on 04.09.2009 in favour of 23 individuals. Thus the sebayats in connivance with the government official misappropriated the property of deity which in turn was khas mahal property and converted the same initially in their own name and then transferred the same in favour of 23 individual through the power of attorney holders. 5. So far as the conduct of the petitioners are concerned, as per the initial counter affidavit it was alleged that the petitioners had given incorrect address and even during the course of investigation it was found that the address was incorrect and so far as Basanti Kumari 2026:JHHC:14943 9 Sethi is concerned, during investigation it revealed that she died almost 10 years back but the same was not yet confirmed. 6. It is also submitted that the then Deputy Commissioner, who had granted the permission for transfer in the name of individual persons was Vinay Kumar Choubey who is also a co-accused in the present case. 7. It has been further submitted that pursuant to the last order a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed in this case wherein the opposite party has stated that on the one hand the address as shown in the anticipatory bail application is itself incomplete inasmuch as the house number was not disclosed in the address which is said to be situated at Barabazar, Kolkata and the area comprises of huge population of approximately 1 lakh. The complete address was also not disclosed in the anticipatory bail application filed before the learned court. 8. It has also been stated that on 25.09.2025 one Sub-Inspector was appointed to visit their house in the District Hazaribagh and they were informed that the petitioners were not residing. The address mentioned in the anticipatory bail application was sought to be confirmed by physical verification. Thereafter another sub inspector and constable was deputed to personally verify the correct address of the petitioners, but could not ascertain. Further, they got information from the Technical Cell that house number was 70 and consequently, two persons visited to house No.70, but during inquiry it revealed that the petitioners had left their house on 04.10.2025 by saying that they are going to Chennai and upon further input received from technical cell, the last location of petitioner No.1 was revealed which was shown to be M. Rajkrishan Trading Private Limited Basat Street, Kolkata (West Bengal) situated near the aforesaid house of the petitioners and upon approach the petitioners were not found at this address also. Consequently, the notice was pasted on the Main Entrance Gate of the residential house of the petitioners situated at House No. 70, 2nd Floor, Basak Street, Barabazar Kolkata and on the 2026:JHHC:14943 10 aforesaid basis, it has been alleged that the petitioners are avoiding to co-operate with the investigation and the address furnished in the anticipatory bail application is incomplete/incorrect. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that enough material has been collected against the petitioners to show that the petitioners converted the Khas Mahal property which was belonging to the deity in their individual names inspite of the fact that the order of the High Court in CWJC No. 4200 of 2000 challenging the order dated 01.07.2000 refusing to grant permission for transfer of land was upheld by this court. It further appears that the government records, particularly Register-II, was also tempered to substitute the name of the deity by name of the sebayats in their individual capacity. This was followed by a proposal for grant of permission to transfer by individual persons, who were actually sebayats of the deity, and permission for transfer was granted in favour of 23 persons. In the meantime, the petitioners were acting through the power of attorney holders namely Vijay Pratap Singh and Sudhir Pratap Singh and ultimately the Khas Mahal government property, which belonged to the deity by way of lease was transferred in favour of 23 persons by individual persons and not in the capacity of sebayats. 10. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid allegation are quite serious and sufficient materials have been collected against the petitioners and accordingly the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail by this Court. 11. This is over and above the fact that the address which has been disclosed before this Court is itself incomplete. Non-mentioning of the house number in a thickly populated place has a serious bearing and the opposite party could trace the house number only with the help of technical cell. The materials placed on record by ACB reveal that they have been making serious attempt to trace out the petitioners, but initially they were not traced out on the given address and then through the Technical Cell they got the house number and at the house 2026:JHHC:14943 11 the petitioners were not found. Subsequently another address of petitioners was found out through technical cell and at the other address also the petitioners were not present. The conduct of the petitioners reveal that they have conducted themselves in such a manner that they remained traceless for quite some time and avoided participation in the investigation of the case. This is over and above the aforesaid fact that much material has been collected against the petitioners disentitling them from the privilege of anticipatory bail. 12. So far as the bail /anticipatory bail granted to the power of attorney holders are concerned, their case stand on different footing as it appears from the sequence of events, as placed by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the power of attorney holders entered into picture much after the permission for transfer was granted and certainly their entry into the affairs was much after passing of the earlier order dated 01.07.2000 refusing permission to transfer was upheld by the High Court in the aforesaid writ petition vide order dated 26.07.2005 and order of resumption of land of the deity was set- aside . At this, the learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the power of attorney is of the year 2009 (executed on 02nd February, 2009). 13. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application was dismissed. 14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 14.05.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-16.05.2026