( 2026:JHHC:12574 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 7141 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 7141 of 2025 Ajit Lakra, aged about 53 years, son of Late Fucha Lakra @ Fucha Oraon, resident of Village- Gangu Toli Church Road, P.O. Chutia, P.S. Chutia, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P. ----- 03/29.04.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No.283 of 2024, registered for the offence under Section 329(3)/308(4)/352/61 of the B.N.S., pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the allegations are made of selling the land fraudulently. He next submits that even the civil suit is pending with regard to the land in question and in spite of that, criminal case has been filed. He next submits that the petitioner has been implicated in 5 cases including the present one and out of that, in 3 cases he has already been acquitted and in another 1 case the petitioner is on bail. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that in para 93 of the case diary, it has come that the petitioner is ( 2026:JHHC:12574 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 7141 of 2025 having 4 other criminal antecedents of similar nature. He next submits that re-statement of the informant was recorded in para 2 of the case diary, wherein, he has supported the case and in paras 11 and 12 of the case diary, other witnesses, namely, Abid and Valiullah Ali have supported the prosecution story. On these grounds, he submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. Looking into the contents of the FIR, it transpires that the allegations are there that in the year 2007 after paying Rs.20 Lakhs for the land in question, the house was constructed and after 5 years of the said construction, this petitioner was unnecessarily raising several types of disputes and trying to grab the land along with his accomplice. The allegations are also there of demanding extortion money of Rs.5 Lakhs. The petitioner is having criminal antecedents of identical nature. There is no doubt that if a civil nature of case is there, criminal case is not maintainable, however, if the criminality is shown, criminal case as well as civil case, both can be maintained. There are allegations against the petitioner. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, as such, his prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. 7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 29th April, 2026 Ajay/