2026:JHHC:11645 1 A.B.A. No. 1817 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1817 of 2026 ---- Abdullah Ansari, aged about 39 years, son of Abdul Jalil Ansari, resident of Village Kundi, PO and PS Itki, District Ranchi .... Petitioner - Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Bandana Sinha, Advocate For the Informant :- Mr. Shahid Khan, Advocate ---- 2/21.04.2026 Heard learned counsels for petitioner and for State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Pithoria PS Case No.107 of 2025, for offence registered under section 316(2), 318(4), 61(2) of BNS, 2023, pending in court of learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and the petitioner has already got the sale deed executed for 13 decimals of land in favour of the informant. He next submits that for the rest of the land, the amount has not been paid and in view of that, the sale deed has not been executed. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel for the informant jointly oppose the prayer and submit that the land for which the agreement was entered into are not belonging to the petitioner and even he has got no authorization to sell the rest of the land by the owner of the said land and in the impugned order 2026:JHHC:11645 2 A.B.A. No. 1817 of 2026 of the learned Sessions Judge, it has come in paragraph no.42 of the case diary, the land is not belonging to the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the informant further submits that so far as 30 decimals of land is concerned, the petitioner himself has negotiated with the owner of the land, however, in reply, it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in 30 decimals of the executed sale deeds the petitioner is the witness. 6. In view of the above and looking to the contents of the FIR it transpires that the allegations are there of entering into the agreement and not transferring the land and in the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, it has come that in paragraph no.42 of case diary the land is not belonging to the petitioner and he has entered into the agreement with the informant and even the owner of the land has not authorized this petitioner to sell the land, and hence, it transpires that the intention to cheat from the very beginning is there, and in the attending facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, and as such, the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner, is hereby, rejected, and accordingly, this anticipatory bail being A.B.A. No.1817 of 2026 is, hereby, dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 21.04.2026 SI/