( 2026:JHHC:21580 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 2496 of 2026 With A.B.A. No. 2660 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2496 of 2026 Md. Eajaz Ahamad @ Md. Ezaz Ahmad, aged about 52 years, son of Md. Kamaruddin, resident of 1978, Khan Road Khirgaon, Taixi Stand, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S. Sadar, Hazaribag, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand- 825301 … Petitioner -Versus- 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Izhar Hussain, son of Riyasat Ali, resident of Village- Kud, P.O. & P.S. Katkamdag, District- Hazaribagh … Opposite Parties With A.B.A. No. 2660 of 2026 1. Md. Guljar, aged about 40 years, son of Md. Muslim, resident of Village- Kud, P.O. Rewali, P.S. Katkamdag, Dist.- Hazaribag 2. Rahul Kumar Singh, aged about 38 years, son of Anil Kumar Singh, resident of Village & P.O. Rewali, P.S. Katkamdag, Dist.- Hazaribag … Petitioners -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate (In A.B.A.-2496/26) Mr. Shailendra Jit, Advocate (In A.B.A.-2660/26) For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. (In A.B.A.-2496/26) Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. (In A.B.A.-2660/26) For the Informant : Ms. Ayushri Aman, Advocate ----- 05/22.07.2026 Both these anticipatory bail applications are arising out of same FIR and in view of that, both these applications have been heard together with consent of the parties. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the State in respective cases and learned counsel appearing for the informant. 3. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Katkamdag P.S. Case No.149 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 323, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh. ( 2026:JHHC:21580 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 2496 of 2026 With A.B.A. No. 2660 of 2026 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in A.B.A. No.2496 of 2026 submits that the wife of the petitioner is the purchaser of the land and she has purchased the land in the year 2020. He further submits that since the petitioner has nothing to do with the said purchase, he may kindly be granted anticipatory bail. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in A.B.A. No.2660 of 2026 submits that the petitioners are neither the seller nor purchaser. He further submits that there are general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners and in view of that, anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State in respective cases and informant jointly opposed the prayer and submit that the witnesses in the case diary have supported the case of the informant/complainant and it has been found that the deed was found to be forged one. They further submit that the petitioners are brokers of the land. On these grounds, they submit that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners may kindly be rejected. 7. In the complaint case, the allegations are made that on the basis of forged sale-deed, the purchasers have come in possession. In para 31 of the case diary, it has come that on the forged deed of the year 1954, the sale-deed has been executed. The witnesses in paras 6 and 7 of the case diary have also stated about the forged sale-deed. The petitioners are said to be land brokers. There are allegations of forgery against them. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in both ( 2026:JHHC:21580 ) -3- A.B.A. No. 2496 of 2026 With A.B.A. No. 2660 of 2026 the applications and, as such, their prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. 8. Accordingly, both the anticipatory bail applications are dismissed. 9. Interim order, granted earlier by this Court, is vacated. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 22nd July, 2026 Ajay/