2026:JHHC:27711 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- A.B.A No.4360 of 2026 ---- 1.Dhaneshwar Giri, son of Brahmeshwar Giri, aged 80 years, resident of Jharkatia, PO and PS Lesliganj,Dist. Palamu At present Near Prashad Petrol Pump, Pandra, PS Pandra OP, Ratu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 2.Bhagwan Bharti, son of late Rajkumar Bharti, aged about 55 years, resident of House No.1, Shree Kunj Bhawan,Road No.1, Purbi Friends Colony, PO and PS District Ranchi,Jharkhand …. .... Petitioners -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand ….. .... Respondent ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner(s) :- Ms Kaushiki Mishra, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, Advocate ---- 2/11.09.2026 Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Daltonganj Town PS Case No.396 of 2025, for offence registered under section 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023, pending in court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamu. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and the case has been lodged with ulterior motive. She also submits that the petitioner no.1 has executed power of attorney in favour of the petitioner no.2 authorizing him to deal with the transfer of the land in question and pursuant to that, on the basis of the said power of attorney, the 2026:JHHC:27711 2 land was transferred by registered sale deed in favour of the wife of the complainant on 08.12.2018. She also submits that those documents are neither false nor fabricated and, she further submits that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as disclosed in paragraph no.14 of the petition, and on these grounds, she submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that the petitioners are having criminal antecedent which has been stated in paragraph no.70 of the case diary. He also submits that the said fact has been suppressed for obtaining anticipatory bail and false statement is made in paragraph no.14 of the petition. He next submits that witnesses have also stated that possession of the said land is by another person and that person is also residing on the land in question, however, the said land has been sold to the informant. 5. By the last order case diary has been called for and in paragraph no.9 of the case diary, witnesses have stated that some other persons have constructed the house on the land in question and at paragraph no.10 of the case diary also the witnesses have stated that some other persons are residing on the land in question. At paragraph no.17 of the case diary, it has come that the petitioners are having criminal antecedent, however, in paragraph no.14 of the petition, false statement is made that the petitioners are having no criminal antecedent, and in the attending facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. As such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is, hereby, rejected and consequently, A.B.A No. 4360 of 2026 is, hereby, dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated : 11.09.2026 SI/