[2026:JHHC:18113] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3616 of 2026 Pawan Kumar, son of Rajendra Prasad, aged about 47 yrs, resident of Q. No. H.B 57 Adarsh Nagar, Dhurwa, Ward No. 39, P.O. & P.S- Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Ms. Nisha Kuamri, Adv. For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, PP 03 / 19.06.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Angara P.S. case No. 102/2023 corresponds to G.R No. 3952/2025 instituted under Section 419,420,423,465, 467,468,471/120B of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused, committed forgery by impersonating as complainant and got a forged power of attorney in his favour from the office of Additional Registrar, Kolkata, West Bengal and executed sale deed on the basis of the forged power of attorney. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 26.09.2025, as mentioned in para 13 of this bail application. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case. It is next submitted that the co-accused with similar allegations has already been admitted to bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 14.02.2025 passed in B.A. No. 452 of 2025 hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. Learned P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view of the direct and serious allegation against the petitioner , he does not deserve bail. It is then submitted that the co-accused, who have been admitted to bail, are the witness and the purchaser of the land and the allegation against the co-accused stands on different footing than that of the petitioner of his case. It is next submitted that there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and also there is chance of the petitioner tampering with the evidence, if released on bail. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be released on bail at this stage. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of his tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 19.06.2026 Smita/-