JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Anti-Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.). 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Hazaribagh ACB P.S. Case No.09 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 409, 467, 468 (inadvertently indicated u/s 469 in impugned order), 471, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) and 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II cum Special Judge, Vigilance (A.C.B.) Hazaribag. 3. By order dated 16.10.2025, this anticipatory bail application is restricted to Sudhir Kumar Singh, who is petitioner no.2, as Vijay Pratap Singh, who is the petitioner no.1, was already arrested. 4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that case is arising out of the complaint made to the Vigilance (A.C.B.) alleging that the petitioner is Power of Attorney holder of the recorded settlees has facilitated transfer of Khas Mahal Land situated in Hazaribagh in favour of several purchasers and that was done in contravention of the Order dated 26.07.2005 passed by High Court of Jharkhand passed in C.W.J.C. No.4200 of 2000. He further submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He next submits that by the registered deed dated 25.02.1941, the said Ganpat Rai Sarogi dedicated the land in question admeasuring 2.75 acres in favour of Deity Shri Shri Mahabir Ji and created a scheme of management through appointed Sewayat. He next submits that by a registered deed dated 29.10.1951, cancellation was sought to be done by said Ganpat Rai Sarogi and it was cancelled in its entirety and, accordingly, 1941 arrangement made by the deed was also terminated and from 1951 onwards, the land seized to be treated as indoor property. He next submits that the said Khas Mahal land was settled in favour of the heirs of the said settlors and renewal of the lease was granted from time to time including the renewal in the year 1977 and 1986 and ultimately an application was filed before the Deputy Commissioner and thereafter the State Government has sanctioned renewal of lease for 30 years which was approved by Department of Revenue and Land Reforms. He next submits that only on sanction, the petitioner, being the power of attorney holder, has transferred the said land, and apart from that, there is no allegation against the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the ACB opposed the application for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and he then submits that the regular bail of the co-accused, who was also the power of attorney holder along with this petitioner, has already been rejected by this Court in B.A. No.10414 of 2025 by the Order dated 07.01.2026. He next submits that in course of investigation, the statement of one Investigating Officer namely Santosh Kumar has also been recorded under section 180 of B.N.S.S., 2023 and who is investigating the A.C.B. Ranchi P.S. Case No.9 of 2025 which was registered under sections 120B, 420, 467, 468,409, 107, 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7(13) and 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in which Vinay Kumar Choubey who is a named accused, an I.O. of the present case especially examined Investigating Officer of A.C.B. Ranchi P.S. Case No.9 of 2025 for the purposes of seeking assistance for recovery of money trail in the present case also and it has been revealed that that during the period from 01.04.2010 to 09.07.2015, an amount of Rs.3.16 Crores was deposited in cash in the bank account of Brahmastra Education Private Limited, in which, wife of Vinay Kumar Choubey, namely, Swapna Sanchita and her brother, namely, Shitij Trivedi (brother-in-law of Vinay Kumar Choubey) are the Directors in the said company. The statement of the informant, Arvind Kumar Agarwal in Korra P.S. Case No.1 of 2024 dated 01.01.2024 registered for the offence under sections 406 and 420 I.P.C was recoded telephonically and the said person has stated that Vijay Pratap Singh along with this petitioner Sudhir Kumar Singh was taken Rs.25 lakhs as consideration amount towards sale of the present Khas Mahal Land in his favour which is the subject matter of the present F.I.R and the said person has also stated that neither the aforementioned two persons returned the money nor they transferred the land in his favour. He also submits that the aforesaid Government Khas Mahal Land was initially granted in favour of one Ganpat Rai Sarogi in the year 1941 i.e on 26.02.1941 and the said Ganpat Rai Sarogi intended to settle the land in favour of the Deity Shri Shri Mahavir Ji and in the said deed of settlement, the said Ganpat Rai Sarogi declared himself as Sevayat and it was clearly provided inter-alia that the property is absolutely dedicated to the Deity Shri Shri Mahavir Ji and no Sevayats, at any point of time, be entitle to give the property as his or her own property and at no point of time, the said property be alienated or sold, partitioned or mortgaged. He submits that in light of Clause 10 of the Sale Deed specifically provided inter-alia that if any alienation or transfer is made one or any of the Sevayat(s) of the property in question, the same will be treated as null and void. He also submits that admittedly the Government Khas Mahal Land given for settling the said land in favour of Shri Shri Mahavir Jee, the Deity, by Ganpat Rai Sarogi, a permission of the Deputy Commissioner is required and accordingly the said permission was accorded in the year 1948 which was granted in favour of Shri Shri Mahavir Ji through the Sevayat Ganpat Rai Sarogi and the said deed was valid for a period of 30 years, that is, up to the year 1978. He further submits that the said Ganpat Rai Sarogi died leaving behind two sons, namely, Panna Lal Sethi and Hira Lal Sethi who assumed the role of Sevayat and an application was filed by the said Panna Lal Sethi for renewal of lease which was expired in 1978. In the investigation, it has been revealed according to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent A.C.B., that an attempt was made to get the lease renewed/ transferred in favour of the individual names of Sevayats, that is, Panna Lal Sethi and Hira Lal Sethi instead of renewal of the lease in the name of Deity, Shri Shri Mahavir Ji, and the said management was sought to be made in favour of Panna Lal Sethi and Hira Lal Sethi and brought deed of cancellation of lease in the year 1951. He next submits that in connivance of this petitioner, along with Vijay Pratap Singh, whose regular bail was rejected by this Court, one Transfer (Partition) Case No.1 of 2009-2010 was registered and in connivance with the then Deputy Commissioner the file was forwarded for permission of transfer. He also submits that the A.C.B. has issued notice under section 35(3) of BNS, 2023 for participating in the investigation but the petitioner has not come forward and is not cooperating in the investigation. He also submits that in paragraph no.119 of the case diary, and in paragraph no.8 of the supplementary case diary, it has come that the petitioner in collusion with other co-accused persons attempting to create the evidences to exonerate himself as well as to implicate the innocent persons and the petitioner was trying to sale out the immovable and movable property and it is a great likelihood that if the privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, he would sell out his movable and immovable properties and that come in paragraph no.119 of the case diary and paragraph no.8 of supplementary case diary. He next submits that the petitioner is having power of attorney holder and has manipulated all the things and has assured the purchasers that he is having high connection with the officers including the then Deputy Commissioner Hazaribagh and he will facilitate everything for transfer of land and these facts are supported by the witnesses whose statement has come in the case diary under section 180 of B.N.S.S. (Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita), 2023. He also submits that one of the witnesses, namely, Manish Narayan has stated that the land is sold to 23 persons by this petitioner along with Vijay Pratap Singh and approached Manish Narayan and stated that he will facilitate every thing as he is having high connection with the then Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh and he has also stated that the land was purchased in the name of his mother and the same fact has also been deposed by the Smt. Priti Prasad and Smt. Nandrani Sinha and their statements are part of the case diary. He also submits that successor-in- interest and Sewayats, namely, Basanti Kumari Sethi, Raj Kumar Sethi, Indrajit Sethi and Rajesh Kumar Sethi, who are accused in the present case, are not cooperating in the investigation and even they have filed anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessoins Judge on the forged address as the address provided in the anticipatory bail petition and when the A.C.B has gone there, that address was found to be forged. He also submits that in the district of Hazaribagh, approximately 5000 acres of land have been illegally transacted and the said lands in fact were belonging to and/or Forest land, Gair Majaruwa Aam, Sarkari Khas Mahal, Kaiser-e-hind, Lakheraj, Trust lands etc. He also submits that the entire land scams were done during the tenure of the co-accused Vinay Kumar Choubey, then Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag in conspiracy with other persons including the petitioner and these facts have come in paras 104 and 107 in case diary. He next submits that the prayer for regular bail of the coaccused Vijay Pratap Singh who is also the power of attorney holder, his such prayer has been rejected by this Court in B.A. No.10414 of 2025 by order dated 7.1.2026 and the bail application of Vinay Kumar Choubey, the then Deputy Commissioner was rejected by order 6.1.2026 in B.A. No.9604 of 2025. In this background, he submits that the petitioner is not deserving anticipatory bail by this Court. He further submits that the transaction has been done in contravention of the order of this Court passed in CWJC No.4200 of 2000 by order dated 26.7.2005. 6. In this background, he submits that the petitioner is not deserving anticipatory bail by this Court. He further submits that the transaction has been done in contravention of the order of this Court passed in CWJC No.4200 of 2000 by order dated 26.7.2005. 6. In view of above submission of the learned counsels appearing for the parties and looking to the contents of the FIR and the documents which have been brought on record and the documents which has been produced in course of the argument of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent A.C.B, it transpires that one Shri Ganpat Rai Sarogi by registered deed dated 25.2.1941 has dedicated the land in question admeasuring 2.75 acres in favour of the Deity, Shri Shri Mahavir Ji and later on the said Ganpat Rai Sarogi has tried to cancel the same by the deed of the year 1951, however, it was not accepted by the authority and the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Region, Hazaribagh, by the order dated 12.12.1988 has ordered for renewal of the said deed in the name of the Deity only. Hira Lal Sethi and Panna Lal Sethi both sons of Ganpat Rai Sarogi have tried to transfer the said land to the third person which was rejected by Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh by order dated 1.7.2000 and the said order was challenged by Basanti Kumari Sethi, Raj Kumar Sethi, Indrajit Sethi and Rajesh Kumar Sethi by filing C.W.J.C. No.4200 of 2000 and the High Court vide order dated 26.07.2005 has been pleased to reject the said writ petition holding that the successor-in-interest or any person who took the charge of Sewayat, had no right to transfer the land in question in favour of any other person and, accordingly, it has been held that the decision of Commissioner of North Chotanagpur Division refusing the grant of permission for transfer of leasehold land is correct. It transpires that even the order of the High Court has not been taken care of in illegally transferring of the land. 7 . It transpires that even the order of the High Court has not been taken care of in illegally transferring of the land. 7 . Three witnesses, as noted in the argument of the learned counsel for the A.C.B, namely, Shri Manish Narayan, Smt. Priti Prasad and Smt. Nand Rani Sinha have deposed that the petitioner along with Vijay Pratap Singh has approached the purchaser to sell the land and the petitioner has also stated that he will facilitate everything as he is having high connection and good relation with the officers including the then Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. They have also stated that the petitioner along with Vijay Pratap Singh were found visiting the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh frequently. The petitioner along with Vijay Pratap Singh are power of attorney holder of Sevayat namely, Basanti Kumari Sethi, Raj Kumar Sethi, Indrajit Sethi and Rajesh Kumar Sethi, who are not cooperating in the investigation and they have even tried to cheat the Court by way of filing anticipatory bail application by providing forged address. 8. Here is the case, wherein the witnesses in the case diary have deposed the name of the petitioner and even attributed his specific role and it has to be considered coupled with the facts and circumstances involved in the case. 9. The investigation against the petitioner is still going on as he is not cooperating. 10. In view of above, it transpires that the petitioner is the prime accused being the power of attorney holder and the regular bail application of Vijay Pratap Singh who is the accomplice of this petitioner has already been rejected by order dated 7.1.2026 passed in B.A. No.10414 of 2025, and in the attending facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, and as such, this anticipatory bail application, being A.B.A. No.5781 of 2025 is, hereby, rejected.