[ 2026:JHHC:27392] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4549 of 2026 Vinay Chandra Lal, (aged about 57 years), son of Late Janardhan Lal, resident of Laxmi Nagar, P.O. - Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar (Pandra OP), District - Ranchi, Jharkhand. ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Nawin Kumar Singh, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Arpit Khandelwal, Advocate. ------ 03/ 11.09.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant. 2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 174 of 2026, registered for the offence under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 115(2), 117(2), 127(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class-XXXI, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He next submits that the case is arising out of the sale agreement between the informant and the petitioner. He further submits that the land owner has voluntarily sold the land to another person and in view of that the petitioner has not been able to execute the sale deed in favour of the informant. He then submits that the petitioner has received a sum of Rs. 27,50,000/- and out of that Rs. 16,50,000/- has already been returned to the informant. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioner. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant have jointly opposed the prayer. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that now the counter affidavit [ 2026:JHHC:27392] -2- has been filed in light of the last order and the notice upon the victim has already been served and that has been disclosed in the said affidavit. He next submits that the allegations are there against the petitioner that after taking the amount, he has not executed the sale deed. He further submits that the petitioner has not paid any amount to the original land owner after taking the amount from the informant that’s why the land owner sold the said land to another person. Learned counsel appearing for the informant further adds that the informant has paid Rs. 27.50 lakhs to the petitioner and no amount has been returned by the petitioner to the informant. He next submits that this petitioner has also introduced the petitioner with the new purchaser Rohit Kumar Agarwal and said Rohit Kumar Agarwal assured to transfer the property in favour of the informant and for that the informant has also paid a sum of Rs. 51.50 lakhs to said Rohit Kumar Agarwal. He then submits that however the deal was not finalized and said Rohit Kumar Agarwal has returned Rs. 51.50 lakhs to the informant. He also submits that false statement has been made by the petitioner herein that he has returned Rs. 16.50 lakhs to the informant. He submits that the petitioner once upon called the petitioner for negotiation and when the informant along with his son, daughter and three years old grand-daughter have gone to the petitioner’s place for negotiation, the petitioner and his family members have assaulted them. He also submits that not only that when the informant was coming to the High Court on 3rd of September, 2026, the petitioner was stopped with the Scorpio vehicle and dashed the informant from the said Scorpio, for that the informant has made a complaint in the Ratu Police Station. On these grounds, they submit that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioner. 5. There is direct allegation of taking the money and not executing the sale deed in favour of the informant and further false [ 2026:JHHC:27392] -3- statements are made that the petitioner has returned Rs. 16.50 lakhs out of Rs. 27.50 lakhs, as the same has been denied by the learned counsel appearing for the informant. Further this petitioner has also introduced with the new purchaser Rohit Kumar Agarwal and said Rohit Kumar Agarwal assured to transfer the property in favour of the informant and for that the informant has also paid a sum of Rs. 51.50 lakhs to said Rohit Kumar Agarwal, however the deal was not finalized and said Rohit Kumar Agarwal has returned Rs. 51.50 lakhs to the informant. It has been pointed out that the amount taken by the petitioner from the informant has not been handed over to the original owner that’s why the original owner has sold the said property to another person. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-11.09.2026 Amitesh/-