[2026:JHHC:3219] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 7034 of 2025 Baiju Prasad Soni, aged about 43 years, S/o Late Dilip Saw, R/o Village-Ratu, Aamtanr, P.O. Ratu, P.S. Ratu, District-Ranchi. ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajan Sahay, Advocate. : Mrs. Nanda Kumari, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate. ------ 06/ 06.02.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No. 306 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 318, 338, 336(3), 340 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the informant has given the power of attorney to the brother of this petitioner, who sold the said land to the present petitioner and thereafter the present petitioner has sold the said land to different persons. He next submits that in view of that the allegation is made in the FIR of not paying the amount to the informant, who is the land owner is not correct. He then submits that for a civil case, criminal case has been filed. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioner. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that the allegation is there of fraudulently transferring the land of the informant by the petitioner to different [2026:JHHC:3219] -2- persons. From the case diary, it has been pointed out that the informant was having the PAN card and that is the part of the case diary and further it has come in the case diary that the power of attorney was manipulated. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the informant has also opposed the prayer and submits that the power of attorney was given only with regard to negotiation and taking care of the said land and it was stated in the said power of attorney itself that so far as the sale is concerned, that will be done by the land owner himself. He next submits that to substantiate the payment, Form-16 of the income tax return filed by the petitioner has been annexed, wherein it has been stated that Rs. 11 lakhs has been paid to the informant in cash, as the informant was not having any PAN card. He then submits that in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been stated that 2.50 lakhs have also been paid to the informant through RTGS. He submits that the statement of the petitioner is itself contradictory. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may not be provided to the petitioner. 6. In view of the above, it appears that in the power of attorney, it has been stated that so far as the sale of the land in question is concerned that will be done by the informant himself, who is the land owner. Ground has been taken of giving Rs. 11 lakhs to the informant in cash, as the informant was not having the PAN card, however, the said ground is not correct, as in the case diary, it has been revealed that the informant was having the PAN card and on the other hand, in the supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the petitioner, it has been disclosed that Rs. 2.50 lakhs have been paid to the informant [2026:JHHC:3219] -3- through RTGS, which fortified the stand of the informant that the manipulations have been made in the power of attorney and further the ground of making payment to the informant is also contradictory. 7. 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. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-06.02.2026 Amitesh/-