( 2026:JHHC:18210 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 2694 of 2026 Dilip Kumar, Age 44 years, son of late Byash Prasad Singh, resident of village-Shashtrinagar, P.O. and P.S. Giridih Town, District-Giridih ...... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Anuj Kr. Trivedi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, A.P.P. 02/ 22.06.2026: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Ahilyapur P.S. Case No. 5 of 2026, registered under sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 338, 336(2), 352 of BNS, 2023, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Giridih. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He next submits that if any case is made out that is of Specific Performance of Contract whereas criminal case has been lodged. He next submits that petitioner has taken only Rs. 50,000/- for supply of building materials and apart from that the petitioner has got no role however, the anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned court. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that petitioner has taken Rs. 2, 20,000/- which has been given through UPI and cash and that has come in para no. 35 of the case diary. He submits that in absence of any document of brokerage of the land he has entered into brokerage agreement with the informant and taken the said amount and in spite of that land was not provided and money has not been returned. ( 2026:JHHC:18210 ) 5. In para 35 of the case diary the nature of payment has been disclosed and most of the payment was made through UPI to the tune of Rs. 2,20,000/-, whereas petitioner has contended that he has taken only Rs. 50,000/- for supply of building materials which is not tenable as per para 35 of the case diary. Further in absence of any brokerage document the petitioner has induced the informant to pay the said amount for transfer of land. Thus, the intention of cheating was there from very beginning. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby is rejected. Dt.22.06.2026 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-