[2026:JHHC:3246] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 7253 of 2025 Uma Sethi, aged about 73 years, W/o Late Raj Kumar Sethi, Resident of: 59 Vashishta Marg, Nemi Sagar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, P.0: Vaishali Nagar P.S: Vaishali Nagarat Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302021. ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, Advocate. : Mr. Mohit Mukul, Advocate. For the State-ACB : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate. ------ 03/ 06.02.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State-ACB. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Hazaribagh ACB P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum- Special Judge, Vigilance (ACB), Hazaribagh. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case is arising out of a complaint, lodged by the Vigilance/Anti- Corruption Bureau, alleging that the petitioner, as an heir of the original lessees, facilitated the transfer of Khas Mahal land situated at Hazaribagh in favour of several purchasers. He next submits that it has been alleged that the said transfers were carried out in contravention of the order dated 26.07.2005, passed by this court in CWJC No. 4200 of 2000. He then submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, as she neither had any dishonest intention or played any role [2026:JHHC:3246] -2- in the alleged offence. He further submits that she has been requested by the other family members to sign the power of attorney, as her husband left for his heavenly abode. He also submits that the petitioner is having several ailments and also aged about 73 years. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State-ACB has opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner along with three other family members have executed the power of attorney in favour of Vijay Pratap Singh and Sudhir Kumar Singh and they have sold the Khas Mahal lands to different persons in connivance with the then Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. He next submits that the regular bail of said Vijay Pratap Singh has already been rejected by this court in B.A. No. 10414 of 2025 by order dated 07.01.2026. He further submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail of Sudhir Kumar Singh has also been rejected by this court in A.B.A. No. 5781 of 2025 by order dated 20.01.2026. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the dispute relates to the lease of a Government Land-Khas Mahal Land, situated in the district of Hazaribagh bearing Holding No.87, Village Sarley, Plot no.446, having an area of 2.75 acres. He next submits that initially the said Khas Mahal Land was initially granted in favour of one Ganpat Rai Sarawgi and in the year 1941 i.e. on 26.02.1941, said Ganpat Rai Sarawgi by an indenture of settlement intended to settle the aforesaid land in favour of "Sri Sri Mahavir Ji", a Deity under the Jain Community and in the said deed of settlement, Ganpat Rai Sarawgi declared himself to be a Sevayat(s) and it was clearly provided, inter [2026:JHHC:3246] -3- alia, that the property is absolutely dedicated to the Deity "Sri Sri Mahavir Ji" and no Sevayat(s) would, at any point of time, be entitled to treat the property as his or her own property and at no point of time, the said property be alienated / sold / partitioned or mortgaged. He submits that in fact clause-10 of the said deed, specifically provided inter alia that if any alienation or transfer is made by any of Sevayat(s) of the property in question, the same would be treated as null and void. 6. Learned counsel further submits that said Ganpat Rai Sarogi died leaving behind his two sons, namely, Panna Lal Sethi and Hira Lal Sethi, who assumed the role of Sevayat(s) and an application was filed by the said Panna Lal Sethi for renewal of the lease, which was scheduled to expire in the year 1978. He next submits that during investigation, it was revealed that at that point of time also, an attempt was made to get the lease renewed/transferred in favour of individual names of Sevayat(s) i.e. Panna Lal Sethi and Hira Lal Sethi instead of renewal of lease in the name of Deity i.e. "Sri Sri Mahavir Ji" and the aforesaid act of getting settlement in the name of individual Sevayat(s) was sought to be supported through a deed of the year 1951, which was an alleged deed of cancellation of trust/settlement executed by Ganpat Rai Sarogi, wherein earlier deed of the year 1941. He then submits that the said deed of the year 1951 is itself a forged and fabricated document and even otherwise said document being unilaterally made by Ganpat Rai Sarogi without approval of the Deputy Commissioner- cum-District Magistrate and that fact has been recorded in para-111 of the case diary. He further submits that Hira Lal Sethi and Panna Lal Sethi, both were sons of Late Ganpat Rai Sarogi have tried to transfer the land to the third person, however, the same was rejected by the [2026:JHHC:3246] -4- Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh and the said order was challenged before this court by Basanti Kumari Sethi, Raj Kumari Sethi, Indrajit Sethi and Rajesh Kumar Sethi in C.W.J.C. No. 4200 of 2000, and this court by order dated 26.07.2005 has been pleased to reject the said petition holding that the successor-in-interest or any person, who took the charge of Sevayat, had no right to transfer the land in question in favour of any other person and, accordingly, it has been held that the decision of the Commissioner refusing the grant of permission for transfer of leasehold land is correct. He then submits that in spite of that fraudulently the land in question has been sold to different persons in connivance with the then Deputy Commissioner of Hazaribagh. He further submits that the petitioner has not co-operated in the investigation, however, notice under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has already been issued to him. 7. The petitioner is the signatory in the power of attorney along with Basanti Kumari Sethi, Raj Kumari Sethi, Indrajit Sethi and Rajesh Kumar Sethi and the said power of attorney has been executed in favour of Vijay Pratap Singh and Sudhir Pratap Singh and how the khas mahal land has been sold to different persons in connivance with the then Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh and that has been noted in the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the ACB and the bail application of the identically situated persons have already been rejected by this court. 8. It is evident that the Government records have been manipulated to get advantage to Sevayats of Deity, however, who are said to be only the custodians and having the managerial interest over the property of the Deity and it was permitted to be converted in favour [2026:JHHC:3246] -5- of Sevayats. From the FIR, it has revealed that the transfer has been done in favour of 23 persons and it has been pointed out that notice under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has already been issued to Basanti Kumari Sethi, Raj Kumari Sethi, Indrajit Sethi and Rajesh Kumar Sethi, however, they have not appeared before the ACB and not co-operated in the investigation. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the ACB that these persons have given incorrect address of their residence and on the basis of that they have also filed their anticipatory bail applications before the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, ACB, Hazaribagh and that has revealed in the investigation when the investigating team has gone to the provided address and the same has come in para-33 of the case diary. 9. In view of the above, it transpires that in spite of notice issued to the petitioner under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Sevayats have not co-operated in the investigation and further reply to that effect has also not been filed before the ACB. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, named above. As such, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. 10. It is made clear that if the petitioner moves for bail before the learned court, the learned trial court will decide the same in accordance with law without prejudice to this order. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-06.02.2026 Amitesh/-