2026:JHHC:25757 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1079 of 2026 1. RAJ KUMAR PRAJAPATI, aged about 50 years, son of Late Bhola Prajapati, 2. KULESHWAR PRAJAPATI, aged about 58 years, son of Lutan Mahto, 3. YUGESHWAR PRAJAPATI @ UGESHWAR PRAJAPATI, aged about 38 years, son of Late Rohan Prajapati 4. RAM DEO PRAJAPATI @ RAMDAYAL PRAJAPATI, aged about 56 years, son of Late Bhola Prajapati 5. NEMI CHAND PRAJAPATI, aged about 78 years, son of Late Nirmal Mahto 6. TILAK PRAJAPATI @ TILAK MAHTO, aged about 63 years, son of Late Nirmal Mahto All resident of Naya Khap, Mukundganj, P.O. Babnabhe, P.S. Mufassil, Distt. Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) … … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand through A.C.B. … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners : Ms. Shaurya Dwivedi, Advocate For the Opp. Party-ACB : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate --- 09/27th August 2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Hazaribagh A.C.B. P.S. Case No. 11/2025 registered for alleged offence under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of IPC, said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge – II – cum – Special Judge Vigilance (ACB) at Hazaribagh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had acquired the property by way of Sada Hukumnama way back in 1929. The 2026:JHHC:25757 2 learned counsel has referred to the rent receipt in the name of Banbari Kumhar at page 9 of the supplementary affidavit dated 20.03.2026, which is of the year 2004 and she submits that this is the oldest rent receipt which is available with the petitioners as per records available before this Court. The learned counsel has further referred to the 2nd supplementary- affidavit dated 04.05.2026 and has submitted that a family tree has been given in Annexure-4 indicating as to how they have inherited the property. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, interim protection was granted to the petitioners. The petitioners have been appearing before the ACB and have been co-operating with the investigation. The petitioners were in possession of the property since 1929 by virtue of sada Hukumnama and at no point of time, the State objected to the possession or title of the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party-A.C.B. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that the investigation against the petitioners is still going on. The petitioners have been given an opportunity to produce the documents on the basis of which they were claiming the title, but none of the documents could be produced to show that they have any title over the property. The names mentioned in the Hukumnama also do not tally. The learned counsel has referred to the supplementary affidavit filed on 12.08.2026 and has referred to paragraph 5 to 15. The learned counsel has also submitted that it is a case of transfer of government land which are forest land and huge conspiracy is involved in this case and the petitioners have been instrumental in making the transfer. The learned counsel has also referred to the 4th supplementary affidavit and has submitted that it has been mentioned therein that the petitioners are still trying their level best to procure certain documents which they were asked to produce. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that in spite of giving opportunity, the petitioners have not been able to 2026:JHHC:25757 3 produce enough documents before the A.C.B. to substantiate their claim over the property or even that their claim was bonafide. The Hukumnama is unregistered document and the earlier rent receipt produced before this Court is only of the year 2004 and the petitioners are still searching certain documents. The fact remains that there is an allegation of a large- scale conspiracy with respect to the transfer of government land and there is likelihood that the petitioners may still tamper with the materials/evidences which are yet to be collected by the A.C.B. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application of the petitioners is hereby rejected. 9. Interim order passed by this Court stands vacated. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 27.08.2026 Uploaded On: 29.08.2026 Mukul/-