( 2026:JHHC:12846 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1602 of 2026 Bhanu Pratap Prasad, son of Late Ram Lal Prasad … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through A.C.B. … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Sankar Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P. --- 06/30.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.07.2023 in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 272 of 2023, corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 13 of 2024 for the offences registered under Sections 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 466, 420, 379, 474 of IPC, chargesheet has been submitted under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 420, 474 120B of I.P.C. and section 13(1)(a)r/w section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that arising out of the same raid, two ECIR Case bearing No. 1 of 2023 and 6 of 2023 were instituted by the Directorate of Enforcement under Section 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act and on the ground of custody since 14.04.2023, the petitioner was enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that so far as the present case is concerned, maximum punishment is 7 years. He has further submitted that once the petitioner has been enlarged on bail in ECIR cases there can be no reason to deny bail to the petitioner in this case and the present case is pending for supply of police papers. The petitioner is in custody since 18.07.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of 17 Register-II in several volumes , land records and deeds kept in 11 trunks. Several registers and records were found tampered and the ( 2026:JHHC:12846 ) 2 petitioner is involved in falsification of original records of several genuine land owners and had also created bogus records. 5. She has submitted that it is not correct to say that maximum punishment would be seven years, rather, allegations under Prevention of Corruption Act is also involved where the prescribed punishment is up to 10 years and for offence under Section 467 of IPC, the maximum punishment prescribed is imprisonment for life. 6. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 466 and 467 cannot go simultaneously and the petitioner is also an accused under Section 466 and maximum punishment under Section 466 is seven years. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as indicated by the learned counsel for the State, this court is of the considered view that mere custody of the petitioner is not sufficient to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the present case. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. 8. However, the State is directed to ensure that there may not be delay in the trial of the petitioner. The State shall also produce the various witnesses promptly. 9. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District and also to the Director, Prosecution so that the police papers are supplied immediately and the court may proceed accordingly. 10. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 30.04.2026 Uploaded on: 01.05.2026 Binit/