2026:JHHC:9416 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1207 of 2026 ------ 1. Dharmendra Kumar Verma, son of Rajendra Prasad Verma, resident of Village Upper Chutia, P.O. and P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi 2. Aryan, son of Nand Kishor Rai, resident of Village Mahilong, Tatisilwai, P.O. and P.S. Tatisilwai, District Ranchi 3. Ashok Nayak, son of Parasnath Nayak, resident of Village Chatakpur Kutiyatu, Namkum, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi .... .... …. 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 : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Special P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate ------ 02/02.04.2026 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1- Dharmendra Kumar Verma and petitioner no.3- Ashok Nayak have already been apprehended. In that view of the matter, he is not pressing the instant anticipatory bail application with respect to petitioner nos.1 and 3. Now this anticipatory bail application will survive only for petitioner no.2-Aryan. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner no.2-Aryan and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The petitioner no.2-Aryan is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dhurwa (Hatia) P.S. Case No. 321 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 337, 338, 336(3), 61 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happen to be power of attorney of one Sushila Sahdeo, who had claimed herself to be the owner of the land in question and thereafter the petitioner has sold the said land to his wife. He submits that the said power of attorney was also registered one and suit is also pending for land in question by the other legal heirs for the said land. 4. Learned Special P.P. for the State, who appeared through video conferencing and learned counsel for the informant have jointly opposed the prayer and submit that on the basis of forged document, the power of attorney has been executed in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State draws the attention of this Court towards para 82 of 2026:JHHC:9416 the case diary and submits that letter of Circle Officer, Namkum is there, wherein he has disclosed that on the basis of forged genealogy, the power of attorney has been executed and from his office, this genealogy has not been issued. 5. Considering that petitioner no.2 is power of attorney holder and the allegations are made of fabricating the documents and in para 82 of the case diary, the Circle Officer has also disclosed that the said genealogy has not been issued from his office, in that view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner no.2-Aryan. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Anit Uploaded 07.04.2026