2026:JHHC:21504 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2576 of 2026 ------ Ram Upadhyay, son of Gouri Upadhyay, aged about 38 years, resident of Panchayat Gadi, Block Dhanwar, Village Argali, P.O. and P.S. Argali, District Giridih, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate Mr. Shwetang Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Ms. Amrita Kumari, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, Advocate ------ 02/21.07.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 342 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 351(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter is arising out of an agreement between the petitioner and the informant and the allegations are made that the petitioner has received certain amount and the sale deed has not been executed in favour of the informant. By way of referring para 19 of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that total consideration amount was Rs.44/- Lakhs and false allegations are made for payment of Rs.21/- Lakhs. He submits that it has been stated therein that Rs.1.50 Lakhs has been paid through mobile and account payee cheque of Rs.51,000/- respectively and rest Rs.11/- Lakhs has been paid through cash which the petitioner is admitting and that has been stated clearly in para 19 of the petition. He further submits that so far rest of the amount is concerned, the petitioner has not received. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to return Rs.12/- Lakhs and odd amount as stated in para 19 of the petition. He next submits that the allegations are made that during the existing agreement, the petitioner has transferred certain land to another person. He also submits that there is business transaction between the petitioner and the informant, 2026:JHHC:21504 who is a Deed Writer and prior to this FIR, 2-3 sale deeds have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the informant. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be allowed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State and the informant jointly oppose the prayer and submit that the allegations are made of taking the money and not executing the sale deed and in view of that the case of cheating is made out. 5. In para 19 of the petition, it has been stated by the petitioner that the petitioner has received Rs.11/- Lakhs in cash and Rs.1.50 Lakhs through mobile and Rs.51,000/- by account payee cheque respectively and the dispute is there with regard to rest of the amount as alleged in the FIR. 6. The matter is arising out of an agreement and it has been stated in earlier paragraph of the petition that the petitioner and the informant are in business term and prior to this FIR, the petitioner has also executed 2-3 sale deeds in favour of the informant, in the attending facts and circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the above-named petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned court within two weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrender, he shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih, in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 342 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 21.07.2026 Anit Uploaded 22.07.2026