2026:JHHC:19346 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3308 of 2026 ------ Taniya Basu, aged about 37 years, wife of Vishwanath Choudhary, resident of BIT Mesara, P.O. Mesra, P.S. Ormanjhi, District Ranchi, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Special P.P. ------ 02/02.07.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Mandu P.S. Case No. 180 of 2022, registered for the offence under Sections 417, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 323, 341, 385, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and the petitioner happens to be power of attorney holder of the informant and thereafter, she has sold the land. He also submits that not a single farthing has been credited in the Account of the petitioner. He next submits that when the Income Tax Department issued notice upon the informant of not disclosing the fact, the present case has been filed. He next submits that two of the accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this court and by the learned Sessions Judge. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the informant is an illiterate lady and she has put her thumb impression on the power of attorney and serious allegations are there against the petitioner of selling the land fraudulently and even not paying consideration amount to the informant. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. The petitioner is said to be a power of attorney holder and pursuant to that she has sold the land. The informant is an illiterate lady 2026:JHHC:19346 and she has put her thumb impression on the power of attorney and when she received the notice from Income Tax Department, thereafter, she has realized that nothing has been paid to her and the FIR has been lodged. The petitioner is having three criminal antecedents that has come in the order of the learned Sessions Judge however, it has been pointed out that in two of the cases, the petitioner has been acquitted. So far anticipatory bail of the co-accused Ram Prasad Sahu is concerned, he was the cousin brother of the informant and in view of that he has been granted anticipatory bail and the learned Sessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail to three of the accused persons considering that they were neither the power of attorney holder nor the seller of the land of the complainant. Thus, the case of these two persons are distinguishable with the case of the present petitioner and those anticipatory bails in favour of the other accused persons are not helping the petitioner, in the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, is hereby, rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 02.07.2026 Anit Uploaded 03.07.2026