2026:JHHC:27806 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- A.B.A. No. 4100 of 2026 ---- 1.Koka Nayak, aged about 56 years, son of Megha Nayak, resident of Village Pugru, Tupudana, Nayak Mohalla, Pugru, near Devi Mandap, Hatia, PO and PS Dhurwa (Hatia), District Ranchi 2.Ashok Kumar Jha @ Sonu Jha, aged about 25 years, son of Arun Kumar Jha, resident of Village Barsam, PO and PS Bheja, Barsam, District Madhubani, Bihar .... Petitioners -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Saket Kumar, Advocate ---- 2/15.09.2026 Heard learned counsels for petitioners and for State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Dhurwa (Hatia) PS Case No.66 of 2026, for offence registered under section 329/324(5)/308(2)/ 303(2)/3(5) of BNS, 2023, pending in court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the occurrence has taken place on 19.03.2026 and the FIR has been instituted on 23.03.2026 that is after lapse of more than four days. He also submits that there is no eye witness and in the FIR itself it has been 2026:JHHC:27806 2 stated that informant was at Patna. He next submits that plot no.360 belongs to the petitioner no.1 as in the land revenue receipt, the name of his great grand-father was mentioned and since then the family was in peaceful possession of the land in plot no.360 by way of Annexure-2 of the petition. He next submits that the informant claims to have purchased plot no.356 in his wife’s name but the informant forcible constructing the unauthorized structure at plot no.360 which belongs to the petitioner no.1. He next submits that in the registered deed, the plot no.360 was there but in the map, manipulation has been made and it has been shown as plot no.356. He next submits that allegations are made that the petitioner no.1 was having one criminal antecedent, however, that was the complaint case and, in that case, the petitioner has already been discharged and petitioner no.2 is having no criminal antecedent. 4. Learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that allegations are there of interfering with the dwelling house. 5. On query made by the Court, the learned counsel for the respondent State fairly submits that in the case diary, it has come that the house was not constructed and it was not a dwelling house. He also submits that in the case diary, there is no clarity about plot number and khata number of the plot in question. 6. At page no.29, the map is annexed with the sale deed 2026:JHHC:27806 3 and on perusal of which, prima facie, it transpires that plot no.360 has been manipulated by way of over-writing being made therein and it has been tried to be shown as plot no.356 and the petitioner no.1 is said to be khatiyani raiyat and the petitioner no.2 is not having any criminal antecedent and the petitioner no.1 was having one criminal antecedent, however, in that case, the petitioner no.1 has been discharged, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. 7. Accordingly, petitioners, above named, are hereby directed to surrender before learned court within three weeks from today, and in event of their surrender/arrest, petitioners, above named, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each, with two sureties of like amount each, to satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in connection with Dhurwa (Hatia) PS Case No.66 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 482(2) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 15.09.2026 SI/