2026:JHHC:17737 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 7267 of 2025 Santosh Kumar Verma, son of late Banshidhar Verma. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through Anti Corruption Bureau … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Senior Advocate : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate : Ms. Shalaka Srivastava, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Ritesh Kr. Gupta, Advocate : Ms. Sanya Kumari, Advocate : Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate : Ms. Nidhi Lall, Advocate --- 04/18.06.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with ACB P.S. Hazaribagh Case No.11/2025 dated 25.09.2025, registered under Sections 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120 B read with Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, ACB, Hazaribagh. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is alleged that the petitioner was the Karamchari/Revenue Sub-inspector / Revenue Karamchari in connection with Mutation Case No.481/2010-2011 in which order was passed on 18.08.2010 and property was mutated in favour of the co-accused namely Vinay Kumar Singh and Snigdha Singh. 4. The learned counsel has submitted that the mutation order itself is based on forged report of Karamchari in which the petitioner never signed. His specific case is that he was called in the office of the Deputy Commissioner – Sri Binay Kumar Choubey, to change the report which was prepared by him opposing the mutation but when he 2026:JHHC:17737 2 refused, he was transferred vide Memo No.692 dated 22.06.2010. 5. The learned counsel has also submitted that as per the prosecution, the records of the aforesaid mutation case is missing and the petitioner has repeatedly applied for the document under Right to Information, but the same has not been supplied to the petitioner. He submits that there is no material against the petitioner to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. He has also submitted that order of mutation was passed after his transfer order. 6. The learned counsel for the ACB has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that huge area of government land has been mutated in name of private persons including Vinay Kumar Singh and Snigdha Singh, at the instance of and in conspiracy with co-accused persons, including Binay Kumar Choubey and other office bearers, which also includes the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel then referred to the counter affidavit, particularly paragraph 16, and submitted that, interalia, the records of Khata No.95 in respect of the land in question were found missing and not traceable. It is alleged that arising out of conspiracy amongst the land mafia in collusion with the then Circle Office staff, the khatiyan of the land in question was destroyed. 8. He further submitted that notices were issued to the petitioner to appear, vide notices dated 21.10.2025, 24.10.2025 and 28.10.2025 and subsequently vide notice dated 16.12.2025; however, the petitioner did not appear for recording of his statement, rather he sent a reply by stating that the Deputy Commissioner was pressurizing the petitioner to change the report and when the petitioner refused, he was transferred. 9. The learned counsel further submitted that though the transfer order is placed on record, but in spite of best of efforts, the prosecution could not find out as to when the petitioner was joined at the transferred place of posting. He further submitted that the records relating to subsequent mutation cases i.e. mutation case no.485, 486, 487 and 488 of 2010-2011 contain the signature of the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel has then submitted that a preliminary 2026:JHHC:17737 3 inquiry has been instituted against the petitioner in connection with disproportionate asset. 11. The learned counsel has also referred to the statement of the co- accused Alka Kumari, recorded under Section 183 BNSS, wherein she has clearly stated the involvement of the petitioner along with the Circle Inspector in furnishing the inspection report, pursuant to which the mutation was done in favour of Vinay Kumar Singh and Snigdha Singh. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder, has submitted that so far as the preliminary enquiry regarding disproportionate asset is concerned, no F.I.R. has been lodged till date. 13. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the allegations made against the petitioner, as well as the materials collected against the petitioner which has been placed on record through the counter affidavit and further, in spite of repeated notices, the petitioner has not appeared before the authority for his examination and that the records of the Mutation Case No.481 of 2010-2011 are still missing and investigation is going on, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this application is hereby dismissed. 14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:18.06.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:19.06.2026