2026:JHHC:19217 --1-- A.B.A. No. 2603 of 2026 with ABA No.2604 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2603 of 2026 ---- Sachidanand Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o Late Laxman Singh, R/o Olidih, Dimna Road, Mango, PO and PS – Mango, Town – Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum, Jharkhand .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 2604 of 2026 ---- Dhiraj Ray @ Raj Dheeraj Upadhyay @ Dheeraj Upadhyay, aged about 51 years, S/o Ram Prasad Ray, R/o – Kalikanagar, Sankosai, Road No.1, Dimna Road, PO and PS – Mango, Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum, Jharkhand .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- A.B.A. No. 2603 of 2026 For the Petitioner :- Mr. Shio Narayan Singh, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Advocate A.B.A. No. 2604 of 2026 For the Petitioner :- Mr. Rishi Ranjan Vats, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Advocate A.B.A. No. 2603 of 2026 & A.B.A. No. 2604 of 2026 For the Informant :- Mr. Pradipto Mitra, Advocate (through V.C.) :- Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Advocate ---- 02/01.07.2026 Heard learned counsels appearing for the petitioners, learned counsels appearing for the State and learned counsels appearing for the Informant. 2. Both the petitions are arising out of the same FIR and in view of that these petitions have been heard together. 2026:JHHC:19217 --2-- A.B.A. No. 2603 of 2026 with ABA No.2604 of 2026 3. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Mango P.S. Case No.310 of 2025, for the alleged offences registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 308(2), 308(4), 351(2), 351(3), 79 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 308(6) of BNS, 2023 added vide order dated 09.01.2026 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in ABA No.2603 of 2026 submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that even the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- in spite of that the petitioner has been implicated and Rs.1,15,000/- was taken by the broker. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in ABA No.2604 of 2026 submits that the only allegation is made against the petitioner that the petitioner has gone to the house of the informant along with four persons and the agreement was executed between the informant and Dhiraj Ray @ Raj Dheeraj Upadhyay @ Dheeraj Upadhyay and apart from that there is no allegation and in view of that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State and Informant jointly opposed the prayer and submits that there are serious allegation against the petitioners of threatening and taking away the signature on the gun point and allegations are made of threatening to take nude photograph if she will not sign the paper and the allegations are also made of taking away of the entire household articles including the Santro car and she was forcefully ousted from the house. 2026:JHHC:19217 --3-- A.B.A. No. 2603 of 2026 with ABA No.2604 of 2026 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State further submits that independent witnesses have supported the case in the case diary and in view of that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 8. In the FIR, the allegations are there that the victim was ousted forcefully from the house. So far petitioner in ABA No.2603 of 2026 namely Sachidanand Singh is concerned, it is alleged that the victim was forced to sale the flat to the petitioner namely Sachidanand Singh on the pretext that Sachidanand Singh holds that area. It has been pointed out that Sachidanand Singh is having eight criminal antecedents and that has come in paragraph No.35 of the case diary. 9. So far petitioner in ABA No.2604 of 2026 namely Dhiraj Ray @ Raj Dheeraj Upadhyay @ Dheeraj Upadhyay is concerned allegations are there against him of going to the flat of victim along with four persons and the allegation is also there against this petitioner of taking the signature on the gun point and the witnesses have supported the case in the case diary. The victim was forcefully ousted from the flat and the allegations are also there of taking her household articles. 10. In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 01.07.2026 Sangam/