2026:JHHC:12740 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1681 of 2026 Indra Dev Prasad, Son of Late Davrika Saw, aged about 63 years, Resident of Nayakhap, Mukundganj, Babhnavai, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S.- Muffasil, District-Hazaribagh. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand, through Anti Corruption Bureau, Jharkhand Police Headquarters, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate : Mr. Shivam Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Roshan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate : Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate : Ms. Nidhi Lall, Advocate --- 06/30.04.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 06.12.2025 in connection with A.C.B. P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge-II-cum-Special Judge Vigilance (ACB), Hazaribagh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the property which has been sold and the entire history with regard to the title of the petitioner has been mentioned in the bail application. He has submitted that as per the allegation, the mutation was done in the name of the purchaser irrespective of the fact that the zamabandi was standing in the name of persons other than the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner believed that he has title over the property and has sold the same. He has submitted that as 2026:JHHC:12740 2 per the allegation the mutation was not running in the name of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner has got no role in the matter of mutation which is said to have been done in connivance of the purchaser and the other officials of the State Government. He has submitted that the at best it is a case of title dispute and mutation by itself does not create any right. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the property which was sold did not belong to the petitioner rather as per the revenue records, it was belonging to Pradeep Kumar Jain and Rajesh Kumar Jain and the mutation was running in their name and therefore, the role petitioner cannot be denied. 5. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 23.04.2026 passed in B.A. No. 927 of 2026 and has submitted that in the said case, the vendor of the property has been enlarged on bail and whose case arise out of the same first information report. Learned counsel has also submitted that the ancestors of the petitioners in B.A. No. 927 of 2026 were the vendors of the ancestors of the present petitioner. Learned counsel has also submitted that the charge sheet has already been submitted. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on the face of the records, it appears that zamabadi was running in the name of the Pradeep Kumar Jain and Rajesh Kumar Jain although the petitioner sold the property and ultimately, as per the allegation, the purchaser of the property connived with the government officials to get the name mutated in their names although the revenue records was not standing in the name of their vendor. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, charge sheet having been submitted and as the co-accused have been enlarged on bail, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional District Judge-II-cum-Special Judge Vigilance (ACB), Hazaribagh in 2026:JHHC:12740 3 connection with A.C.B. P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025 on the following conditions: (i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner. (ii) The other bailor should be his close relative. (iii) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of his single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court. (v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned court below. 8. The instant bail application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions. 9. Let a copy of this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 30.04.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-04.05.2026