2026:JHHC:21844 --1-- A.B.A. No. 3987 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3987 of 2026 ---- Sanjay Prakash, aged about 55 years, S/o Ram Prakash, resident of MIG-234, Hanuman Nagar, Kankarbagh, PO – Lohianagar, PS – Kankarbagh, District – Patna, Bihar .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Arpit Khandelwar, Advocate :- Mr. Mehul Raj, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, Advocate ---- 05/23.07.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No.05 of 2024, for the alleged offences registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 406, 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not party in the agreement and the agreement was reached between the informant and five other persons for constructing a cricket stadium in Khusrupur, Patna. He further submits that even the land was obtained and work has also started and thereafter third person has come and claim the said land. He 2026:JHHC:21844 --2-- A.B.A. No. 3987 of 2026 then submits that the petitioner is only employee of Suday Kumar and in the account of Suday Kumar and Pappu Prasad the informant has paid an amount of Rs.2,60,00,000/- He next submits that amount has also not been credited in the account of the petitioner. He also submits that the case is civil in nature and in spite of that criminal case has been lodged. He next submits that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as disclosed in paragraph No.9 of the petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner is named in the FIR. 5. On query made by the Court, learned counsel appearing for the State fairly submits that what role this petitioner has played is not clear from the FIR. 6. Considering that the petitioner is neither the signatory on the agreement meant for construction of the cricket stadium nor the amount in question has come in the account of the petitioner and amount has been credited in the account of Suday Kumar and Pappu Prasad and it has been pointed out that even the land was taken over and work was started and on interference of the third party work has been stopped and thereafter the FIR has been lodged and the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as disclosed in paragraph No.9 of the petition and what role the petitioner has played in such transactions that is not clear from the FIR. In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, I am 2026:JHHC:21844 --3-- A.B.A. No. 3987 of 2026 inclined to provide anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is hereby directed to surrender before the learned Court within three weeks from today, and in the event of his surrender/arrest, the petitioner, above named, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No.05 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 23.07.2026 Sangam/