DANINDRA KUMAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH ACB
A.B.A./3228/2026 · 2026-07-23
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 21759 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 21759 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:21766 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 3228 of 2026
Danindra Kumar, aged about 54 years, S/o Sri Ramapati Lal Das, R/o Village-Shiv Dayal Nagar, Durga Mandir, P.O.- GPO, P.S.- Sadar, District- Hazaribag (Jharkhand)
… … Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand through ACB … … Opposite Party ---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, Advocate
: Mr. Ujjwal Jaipuriar, Advocate
: Mr. Vijayendra Pratap, Advocate
For the ACB
: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
: Mr. Nilohit Choubey, Advocate
: Ms. Nidhi Lall, Advocate
: Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate
---
07/23.07.2026
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. This anticipatory bail application has been filed for apprehending the arrest in connection with ACB Hazaribag P.S. Case Number 11 of 2025 instituted under Sections 13(2) R/W 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code 1860 pending in the court of learned ADJ II cum Special Judge Vigilance (ACB), Hazaribag.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following
submissions: i. The petitioner happens to be the power of attorney of a number of persons with respect to the property involved in this case which is just 28 decimals of land in Khata No. 95 plot No. 848 and being the power of attorney, he had sold the property to
2026:JHHC:21766 2
Vinay Kumar Singh and Snigdha Singh. Apart from this he had no role. He had acted merely an agent. ii. The power of attorney is of the year 2006 and the land was sold by registered deed in the year 2010 and the case has been instituted in 2025 and there is delay of 15 years in lodging the case. iii. The petitioner is not a public servant and therefore, the Prevention of Corruption Act is not applicable. iv. There is an allegation that the mutation records relating to this property and other properties are missing, but the petitioner has no access to the office and therefore, he cannot be held responsible for that. v. The petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation.
4.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the ACB has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that the first information report was registered with respect to land scam that has surfaced in the district of Hazaribagh wherein Gari Majarua Khas Land, Forest Land, Government Land, Gochar Land or lands which are either Gair Majarua Aam or Khas have been illegally transferred by sale-purchase by land mafias, Government Officials and seller- purchaser by committing criminal conspiracy among themselves and by manipulating government records and has submitted that the petitioner is not only the power of attorney of the property involved in this case, but is the power of attorney holder of huge chunk of land and he is the named person who has been instrumental in transferring the aforesaid land. Learned counsel for ACB has referred to paragraph 9, 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit.
2026:JHHC:21766 3
5.
Learned counsel for ACB has further referred to paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit to submit that the property which was sold was not even standing in the name of the person, who had executed the power of attorney in the name of the petitioner. As per Register-II, the land was recorded in the name of Pradeep Kumar Jain and Rajesh Kumar Jain both sons of Kishan Lal Jain.
6. He has also referred to the statement of the co-accused recorded under Section 183 of BNSS wherein it has come as to how the entire conspiracy was hatched and the land was transferred. Learned counsel has submitted that the person who had given power of attorney in favour of the petitioner namely Prem Prasad Gupta, his prayer for anticipatory bail has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.06.2026 passed in A.B.A. No. 2636 of 2026, a copy of the said
order is placed before this Court vide Annexure-C in the counter affidavit.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner being the power of attorney holder, sold the land to the two co-accused namely Vinay Kumar Singh and Snigdha Singh as a part of conspiracy in transferring the land in Khata No. 95 plot No. 848 which were in the nature of Gair Majarua Khas Kism Jungle land and notified as Protected Forest Land for which a reference has been made in paragraph 394 of the case diary. The fact remains that the entire mutation records are missing and as per the counter affidavit there is a likelihood that the petitioner would influence the witnesses and tamper the evidence. The fact also
2026:JHHC:21766 4
remains that Prem Prasad Gupta has been denied the privilege of anticipatory bail.
8. This Court is of the view that enough material is available against the petitioner and it is a case of land scam in which numerous persons have conspired and the petitioner being the power of attorney holder and the person instrumental in getting the land transfer has certainly had a role as per the materials collected during investigation.
9. So far as the argument of the petitioner that the Prevention of Corruption Act is not applicable, the argument is completely misplaced. It is a case where petitioner entered into criminal conspiracy with other government officials and many others in alleged land scam. The argument of the petitioner that it was beyond his capacity to get the records missing is also completely misplaced as the petitioner was alleged to have acted in conspiracy with those who were custodian of the missing records. If the petitioner is granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, there is every likelihood that he may tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses of the case.
10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
11. This anticipatory bail application is rejected.
12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 23.07.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-25.07.2026