2026:JHHC:21976 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4054 of 2026 ---- Mahibullah Ansari @ Mahibulah Ansari, aged about 47 years, son of late Najbul Haque, resident of Village Balu, Post Kokdoro, PS Pithoria, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 834006 UID No.2579 3164 8446. .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mohammad Asghar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Shahid Khan, Advocate ---- 2/24.07.2026 Heard learned counsels for petitioner and for State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Pithoria PS Case No.107 of 2025, for offence registered under section 316(2), 318(4), 61(2) of the BNS, 2023, pending in court of learned S.D.J.M., at Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has not taken any amount with regard to the sale of the land. He next submits that the agreement was not entered into by the petitioner. He next submits that the allegations are there of taking money and not executing the sale deed and false allegations are made that the land was not in the name of the two co-accused persons and on these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant jointly oppose the prayer and submit that the land for which agreement was entered into was not 2026:JHHC:21976 2 belonging to the two of the co-accused persons and this petitioner was instrumental in forcing the informant for entering into the agreement and huge amount of Rs.1,15,00,000/- has been taken and in spite of that, the sale deed has not been executed and later on, it transpired that the land in question was not belonging to the persons who have entered into an agreement. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant further submits that the petitioner has also taken Rs.3,00,000/- and he was instrumental in introducing the informant with the two of the co- accused persons who were having no ownership of the said land. 6. Considering that the allegations are there against the petitioner of introducing the informant with two of the co-accused persons who have entered into an agreement and they were having no ownership on the same land and it has been pointed out that this petitioner has also received Rs.3,00,000/- and the petitioner is said to be a broker of the land and the co-accused persons has not been granted anticipatory bail in ABA No.1817 of 2026, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected, and consequently, this anticipatory bail application being A.B.A.No.4054 of 2026 is, hereby, dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 24.07.2026 SI/