2026:JHHC:16864 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2636 of 2026 Prem Prasad Gupta @ Prem Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Rameshwar Saw … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through A.C.B. … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate : Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate --- 04/11.06.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioner who is apprehending arrest in connection with Hazaribag ACB P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, said to be pending in the court of learned Special Judge A.C.B. Hazaribagh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the anticipatory bail application, the petitioner had transferred land measuring only 28 decimals in Khata No. 95 and plot no. 848 to Anil Kumar Singh / Binay Kumar Singh / Snigdha Singh w/o Binay Kumar Singh but there is no direct allegation against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is the owner of the land through his ancestors and the supporting document has been annexed at Annexure-2. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party- ACB has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has referred to the counter-affidavit to submit that huge chunk of land belonging to the government/forest has been sold by the petitioner to the prime accused in the case either by himself or through the power of attorney holder and ultimately, the government land has been diverted to private parties. The learned 2026:JHHC:16864 2 counsel has referred to the various paragraphs of the counter-affidavit particularly paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 13. He submits that there is connivance amongst the co-accused persons and mutation has also been done in connivance with each other. He submits that the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. 5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the materials which have been mentioned in the counter- affidavit referring to the various paragraphs of the case-diary, this Court finds that huge chunk of government land has been sold by the petitioner/through power of attorney of the petitioner to the co- accused in the present case and ultimately, mutation also has been effected, although the properties are government land/forest land belonging to the government. Apart from the aforesaid, it has also been found that with respect to 28 decimals of land sold to Binay Kumar Singh and Snigdha Singh the land is still recorded in the name of another person as per register II and the petitioner is neither the owner nor the raiyat with respect to the said land. In view of the materials collected against the petitioner during investigation, this Court is not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and hence, this anticipatory bail application is rejected. 6. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:11.06.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:12.06.2026