2026:JHHC:26377 --1-- A.B.A. No. 4962 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4962 of 2026 ---- Kanchan Tiwary, aged about 46 years, son of Late Janki Tiwary, resident of Private House, near Housing Office, Road No.13, Adityapur, PO and PS – Adityapur, District – Saraikella- Kharsawan, Jharkhand .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ruby Vikash, wife of Lalit Vikash, resident of 276/2-2, Road No.8, Adityapur-2, Jamshedpur, PO and PS – Adityapur, District – Seraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand .... Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Anish Kr. Mishra, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Advocate ---- 02/01.09.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State through V.C. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No.199 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.949 of 2016 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 406, 420, 468, 469, 471, 120-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this is the second anticipatory bail application and in the changed circumstances the second anticipatory bail application has been filed and in view of that this application may kindly be entertained. He 2026:JHHC:26377 --2-- A.B.A. No. 4962 of 2026 further submits that the matter is arising out of an agreement and in view of that anticipatory bail further may kindly be considered on merit. He then submits that the petitioner has earlier moved before this Court in ABA No.307 of 2017 which was rejected by order dated 18.07.2017 and against the said order the petitioner has moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) which was further dismissed as withdrawn and thereafter the petitioner has filed Cr.M.P. No.1829 of 2017 before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn and thereafter the petitioner has again filed Cr.M.P. No.1411 of 2025 before this Court and the said was further dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He next submits that since the matter is of civil nature and in view of that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State through V.C. opposes the prayer and submits that the case is of the year 2016 and on the merit anticipatory bail application of the petitioner has already been rejected and twice the Cr.M.P. has been dismissed. She further submits that there is no fresh ground to entertain the present second anticipatory bail application and in view of that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner has earlier moved before this Court in ABA No.307 of 2017 which was rejected by order dated 18.07.2017 and thereafter the petitioner has challenged the same before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed as 2026:JHHC:26377 --3-- A.B.A. No. 4962 of 2026 withdrawn and thereafter the petitioner has again filed Cr.M.P. No.1411 of 2025 which was further dismissed by the order dated 13.07.2026. Thus, the petitioner has filed several petitions and even went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and all those petitions have been dismissed and thereafter the present second anticipatory bail application has been filed. 6. In the FIR, it is alleged that the informant had a piece of land at Adityapur and development agreement was entered by the informant along with the petitioner for construction of multi storied flat and subsequently another revised development agreement was prepared between the parties on 15.07.2013 and according to the said revised development agreement the developer has to handover the share of the flat to the informant latest by April, 2015 and in default thereto, the builder was liable to pay fine of Rs.5,500/- per month per flat as a compensation. The allegation is also made that 40% of the total developed area was to be given to the informant and accordingly two flats bearing on second floor and one flat on third floor was required to be handed over to the informant. The allegations are made that those flats were not given to the informant rather the petitioner has sold the aforesaid flats to other persons without taking prior permission of the land owner, who is the informant and in view of that allegations are there of selling the flat of the informant to another person which clearly suggests that intention to cheat from the very beginning were there. The 2026:JHHC:26377 --4-- A.B.A. No. 4962 of 2026 aforesaid applications earlier moved by the petitioner has already been dismissed. No fresh ground is made out to entertain the present second anticipatory bail application. Accordingly, this application is hereby dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 01.09.2026 Sangam/