( 2026:JHHC:21292 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.1234 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1234 of 2023 ------ Pushpa Kumari, aged about 34 years, wife of Dhruv Kumar Raut, resident of Tetultalla, Rly. Colony, Qr. No.271, P.O. Dhansar, P.S.- Dhansar, District-Dhanbad. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sachin Kumar Rawani, son of Shyamal Rawani, resident of Rani Road, Bhuda, Near Gurunanak College, P.O.-Dhansar, P.S.-Dhansar, Disrtict-Dhanbad. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Sidharth Sudhanshu, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party no.2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad vide order dated 09.11.2022 in A.B.P. No.2851 of 2022 in connection with C.P. Case No.4775 of 2022 involving the offences punishable under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2026:JHHC:21292 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.1234 of 2023 3. The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party no.2 is the accused person of the said case. Vide the said order dated 09.11.2022, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad considered that the dispute between the parties is a dispute of civil nature. The husband of the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale with the opposite party no.2; the opposite party no.2 entered into the said agreement with the husband of the petitioner, after taking Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant and Rs.5 Lakhs from Kavita Kumari who was the enquiry witness no.1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad considered the readiness of the petitioner to refund the amount, if the enquiry witness no.1 vacates the land and handovers the vacant possession of the land in respect of which the agreement was entered into. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad also considered the contention of the opposite party no.2 that complainant has manipulated the power of attorney and committed forgery by replacing the time period for which the power of attorney was executed from 04 months to 14 months and by thus considering, granted anticipatory bail to the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 apparently might have furnished bail bond in terms of the said order, but neither there is any averment in the criminal miscellaneous petition as to whether the petitioner has appeared before the court concerned within two weeks from 09.11.2022 when the said anticipatory bail was granted to the opposite party no.2 and furnished bail bond nor the counsel appearing for the petitioner or the opposite ( 2026:JHHC:21292 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.1234 of 2023 party no.2 would say as to on which date, the opposite party no.2 furnished bail bond in the court concerned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence of cheating is made out, hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that merely because of a non-bailable offence is made out, that by itself will not be a ground for not granting the anticipatory bail to an accused; because if such a proposition is considered to be true, then the very purpose of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be redundant, because the power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised only when there is apprehension of a person being arrested in connection with non-bailable offence. It is then submitted by them that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of committing any acts or omission which will make him liable for cancellation of his bail. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the anticipatory bail order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad in A.B.P. No.2851 of 2022 in connection with C.P. Case No.4775 of 2022 is no more ( 2026:JHHC:21292 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.1234 of 2023 in force because the same was operational for two weeks from 09.11.2022. There is no material before this Court to suggest as to whether the opposite party no.2 has furnished bail bond before the trial Court in terms of the said order and if he filed the bail bond, on which date, he has filed the bail bond. Otherwise, also merely because a non-bailable offence is made out, that does not debar the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad from exercising the power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The dispute between the parties is certainly having a civil flavor and there is no allegation against the opposite party no.2 of misusing the privilege of anticipatory bail. 7. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioner made in this Cr.M.P. in exercise of the power under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 18th of July, 2026 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 20/07/2026