( 2026:JHHC:18401 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3533 of 2026 ------ Chandan Kumar Thakur @ Chandan Kumar, aged about 34 years, S/o Late Sunil Kumar Thakur, R/o Old HB Road, Dipatoli, Near Shiv Mandir, New Nagar, Bandhgari, P.O. & P.S. –Sadar, District –Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Shashank Shekhar No.3, Advocate : Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. For the Informant : Md. Naushad Eqbal, Advocate : Mr. Saif Eqbal, Advocate : Mr. Abhishek Ranjan, Advocate : Mr. Mahtab Ahmad, Advocate ------ Order No.04 Dated- 23.06.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Kanke P.S. Case No.322 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under sections 406/420/467/468/479/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being a land broker and the complainant is his associate and the petitioner made the complainant believe that the petitioner is an agreement holder of different plots of land of Khata No. 150 of village –Gaggi, P.S. Kanke, District –Ranchi and the said land is free form litigation, dispute and encumbrances including free from CNT Act and Gairmajurua land and the complainant entered into an agreement with the petitioner for sale and transfer of the land under Khata No.150 and paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner and further paid Rs.20,00,000/- to the owner of the land namely Anish Kumar. The complainant most of the time was living in Bangalore and after investigation, the complainant found that the said land under Khata No. 150 is Adivasi Gairmajurua Land and the same has fallen under the C.N.T. Act and on being approached, the petitioner and the co-accused owner of the land –Anish Kumar apologized the complainant and assured to refund the money. Later on, the petitioner offered to sell another land to the complainant at village –Pundag and the complainant paid Rs.20,00,000/- to Prem Narayan Singh, the owner of the land of Pundag without reading the agreement. When the complainant demanded and pressurized the petitioner and Prem Narayan Singh to transfer the land in his favour, the sale deed was drafted and prepared in which the petitioner mentioned his name as one of the purchaser although the entire consideration amount was paid by the complainant but later on the complainant came to know that the co-accused person nos. 4, 5 & 6 of the complaint who sold the said land were not the owner of the land. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and there is no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. It is then submitted that the dispute between the parties is at best a civil dispute. It is further submitted that the complainant voluntarily entered into the agreement in respect of the land at village –Gaggi and paid money to Anish Kumar. It is next submitted that the petitioner never executed any document in respect of the land situated at village – Gaggi and the petitioner did not receive any money in respect of the land at Ormanjhi. It is further submitted that the sale deed executed on 09.10.2020 at the Sub-Registrar’s Office involves the complainant’s direct participation. Drawing attention of this Court to page no.81 which is the part of the F.I.R., it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a partnership between the petitioner and the complainant with respect to the land of Ormanjhi. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 01.03.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 17 of the bail application. It is then submitted that charge sheet has already been submitted in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner has cheated huge amount of money. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials in the record as also the facts that the petitioner has been in custody since 01.03.2026, charge sheet has already been submitted in this case, the dispute between the parties is at best a civil dispute and that there is no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, I am inclined to enlarge the above-named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class –XXIV, Ranchi, in connection with Kanke P.S. Case No.322 of 2023 with the condition that the petitioner will co- operate with the trial of the case and will furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case, with further condition that he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 23.06.2026 Sonu/