( 2026:JHHC:11747 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 1604 of 2026 Yogesh Kumar @ Yogesh Kumar Sahu, aged about 41 years, son of Gobrardhan Sahu, resident of village Argora, near Hanuman Mandir, P.O. and P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand ...... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Informant : Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate 02/ 22.04.2026: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant. 2. Learned counsel for the informant submits that counter-affidavit is ready but the same has not been filed as the matter was of Board. 3. In view of her such submission, let the counter affidavit be taken on record. 4. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No. 171 of 2025, registered under sections 316 (2), 318(4), 336(3), 337, 338 and 3(5) of the BNS, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has entered into a development agreement with Oceanic Buildtech & Construction Pvt. Ltd. on 15.10.2018 and company has become agree to provide six flats against the land. He further submits that the informant has lodged the case alleging therein that the land is belonging to the informant however, for the said land forged document has been shown by the petitioner and entered into a development agreement with Oceanic Buildtech & Construction Pvt. Ltd. He next submits that false allegation has been made against the petitioner and in view of that petitioner may kindly be provided ( 2026:JHHC:11747 ) privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that petitioner is having five criminal antecedents of similar nature which has come in para 85 of the case diary. 7. Learned counsel for the informant oppose the prayer and submits that petitioner is having five criminal antecedent however this fact has been suppressed by the petitioner in filing the present anticipatory bail that is sufficient to reject the anticipatory bail. She submits that land in question was purchased by Panna Lal Ganju from Fago Devi and Sunita Devi through their Power of Attorney Holder Yogesh Kumar who is petitioner and sold the scheduled property to Panna Lal Ganjhu on their behalf. She further submits that Panna Lal Ganjhu sold the scheduled property in favour of Sunaina Devi vide registered sale deed no. 697 dated 26.02.2013 and the petitioner has signed the said sale deed as a witness and was well aware that the scheduled property belongs to Sunaina Devi. She further submits that on enquiry it was found that the petitioner forging some documents, misrepresented himself to be the owner of the scheduled property and entered into a development agreement date 15.10.2018 with the Oceanic Buildtech and Construction Private Limited and in view of that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 8. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties it transpires that petitioner has entered into a development agreement with Oceanic Buildtech & Construction Pvt. Ltd. and it appears that the intention of cheating was from very beginning. The petitioner has five criminal antecedents which has come in para 85 of the case diary however, this fact has been suppressed by the petitioner in filing the present anticipatory bail application as no such averment has been made in the ( 2026:JHHC:11747 ) anticipatory bail application. 9. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Dt.22.04.2026 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-