( 2026:JHHC:12943 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 54 of 2025 Lal Prasad Gorai, aged about 64 years, son of late Jyoti Lal Gorai, resident of Chkayasi Basti, P.O. Chiksia, P.S. Chas (M), District-Bokaro ...... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Om Prakash Pramanik, Aged about 54 years, S/o late Monu Pramanik; 3. Sanjay Thakur @ Sanjay Bhim Thakur, Aged about 48 years, S/o Late Bhim Napit; 4. Arun Pramanik @ Arun Parmanik, Aged about 75 years S/o Late Monu Pramanik; 5. Rohan Pramanik, Aged about 72 years, S/o Late Jadu Pramanik; 6. Vishnu Pramanik, Aged about 40 years, S/o Bablu Pramanik; 7. Radhu Pramanik, Aged about 71 years, S/o Nitai Pramanik; 8. Nagendra Pramanik, Aged about 58 years, S/o Late Monu Pramanik; 9. Shibu Pramanik, Aged about 37 years, S/o Radhu Pramanik. 10. Anil Pramanik @ Arnal Pramanik, Aged about 42 years, S/o Rohan Pramanik, All R/o Village Kala Pathar, P.O. Chiksia, P.S. Chas (Muffassil), District Bokaro .…. … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P For the O.P. Nos. 2 to 10 : Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, Advocate ………. 02/ 01.05.2026: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2 to 10. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for modification of order dated 13.06.2024 passed in A.B.A. No. 10826 of 2023 and analogous cases. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said case was decided along with analogous ABAs and the O.P. Nos. 2 to 10 have been granted anticipatory bail. He further submits that in the said A.B.As, it has been observed that Title Suit No. 48 of 2007 is pending before the Court of Munsif, Bokaro. However the fact remains that the said suit was dismissed for default and it is not pending now and further in the last two line of the said order it has been observed that both parties have been restrained ( 2026:JHHC:12943 ) themselves from doing anything towards breach of peace and tranquility till the final disposal of the title suit. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that it appears that submissions of both sides have been noted and thereafter the said order has been passed and in view of that there is nothing wrong in the said order. 5. Learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2 to 10 submits that the said title suit has been dismissed for non-prosecution that has been noted in para 7 of the said order for which modification has been sought and it has also been noted that for restoration of the said suit, petition has already been filed. He further submits that subsequently restoration petition has been dismissed by the learned trial court and against the said order the O.P. Nos. 2 to 10 preferred the appeal which was allowed directing to hear the restoration petition and the same is being heard. He submits that at the time of passing of anticipatory bail application by the Coordinate Bench of this Court status qua was being maintained in the light of order of S.D.O. and after passing of the order in A.B.A, the SDO order is not existing. 6. In view of above it transpires that the Co-ordinate Bench has noted the arguments of both sides. The dismissal aspect has also been noted. The restoration petition was filed which has also been noted. Pendency of the suit was also noted and it has been pointed out that the said restoration petition was rejected and appeal was allowed pursuant to that the restoration petition is being heard on merit. 7. Thus so far this aspect is concerned, nothing has been noted wrong in the said order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in A.B.A. No.10826 of 2023 and analogous cases dated 13.06.2024. So far last two line of said order is concerned with regard to the permanently restraining both the sides, the dispute is herein with regard to construction of building on the ( 2026:JHHC:12943 ) disputed land on which both sides have claimed. If such dispute is there with regard to construction of building on disputed land, the parties are required to obtain appropriate order from the appropriate court. The order passed in anticipatory bail, nothing is required to be modified. As such, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Dt.01.05.2026 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-