[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Shailesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Cid ... ... on 16 February, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2026:JHHC:4269
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ABA No.5132 of 2025
Shailesh Kumar Singh, aged about 58 years, Son of Late Vikramaditya
Singh, resident of House No.-314/3, Indrapuri, Road No.1, Ashiana
Nagar, P.O- Bihar Veterinary College & P.S-Sastri Nagar, District-Patna,
State-Bihar, 800023. .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through CID ... Opp. Party
With
ABA No.5698 of 2025
Bimal Kumar Agarwal, aged about 53 years, son of Shri Bir Kumar
Agarwal, resident of South City Residents, Tower-I, 6J, 375, Prince
Anwar Shah Road, Near South City Mall, Jodhpur Park, PO Jodhpur
Park, PS Jadavpur, District Kolkata- 700068, (West Bengal).
.... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through CID ... Opp. Party
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh, Advocate
Mrs. Sneh Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mirnal Kanti Roy, APP
------
2/16.02.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioners and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. These petitions are arising out of the same FIR, in view of that,
these petitions are heard together with the consent of the parties.
3. The petitioners are having the apprehension of being arrested in
CID P.S. Case No.04/2025 dated 09.01.2025, registered under
Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and Sections 30 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, pending in the
Court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, XVIII cum
Special Judge, CID, Ranchi.
4. The FIR has been registered alleging therein that as per the
prosecution case, CID P.S. Case No. 04/2025 dated 09.01.2025 was
2026:JHHC:4269
registered pursuant to a detailed complaint lodged by the Forest
Divisional Officer, Bokaro Forest Division, Bokaro alleging a land
fraud concerning approximately 95.65 acres of forest land located in
Mouza Tetulia, P.S. Chas, District Bokaro. It is alleged that accused
persons namely Izhar Hussain, Akhtar Hussain, and their associates,
in conspiracy with public servants, illegally claimed ownership over
protected forest land by fabricating and using forged documents
particularly a sale certificate purportedly issued in 1933 which was
never found in official records. These forged documents were
allegedly used to mutate the land and sell it to various parties,
including M/s Umaayush Multicom Pvt. Ltd.
(i) The prosecution case arises out of a large-scale land scam
involving approximately 95.65 acres of forest land located in Mouza
Tetulia, P.S. Chas, District Bokaro, which includes Plot Nos. 426 and
450. The said land was originally declared a private protected forest
in 1947, and subsequently notified as protected forest land by the
Bihar Government vide notification dated 24.05.1958. In 1962, the
land was transferred for use to the Hindustan Steel Limited (now
Bokaro Steel Plant, BSL) but was never formally returned to the
Forest Department.
(ii) In or around 2012, accused persons Izhar Hussain and Akhtar
Hussain, under an alleged criminal conspiracy, fabricated documents
claiming to be descendants of one Sameer Mahat @ Sameer Mahato
@ Sameeruddin Ansari, who they falsely claimed had acquired the
land through auction in 1933. These documents included a dubious
2026:JHHC:4269
auction sale certificate and a hibbanama (gift deed) allegedly
executed by their grandfather. On the basis of these documents, they
fraudulently secured mutation orders and correction letters, despite
the fact that at the time of the alleged auction, the purported
purchaser was only 9 years old.
(iii) The fraud was facilitated by the Anchal Adhikari of Chas, who
issued mutation orders without lawful authority. The matter was
flagged by the Divisional Forest Officer and investigated by a three-
member government committee, which confirmed the forged nature
of documents, the non-cultivated status of the land, and no
possession by the accused.
(iv) Despite this, the forged title was used by Izhar and Akhtar
Hussain to execute a registered sale deed dated 10.02.2021 in favour
of Umaayush Multicom Pvt. Ltd., a company formed just 20 days
prior with a market capital of Rs. 15 lakhs. The said company
allegedly paid ₹10.3 crores by cheque, but the genuineness of these
payments is also under suspicion.
(v) Manipulation was uncovered in proceedings before the
Settlement Officer, Dhanbad, where an earlier dismissed case was
illegally revived, signatures of original plaintiffs were forged, and the
land extent was inflated from 10 decimals to 74.38 acres.
(vi) The fraud came to light after the Forest Department initiated
correspondence with the District Registrar, Purulia, who confirmed
that the original sale certificate from 1933 does not exist in official
records. Based on these findings, FIR No. 32/2024 was registered at
2026:JHHC:4269
P.S. Sector XII, Bokaro, and subsequently, CID P.S. Case No.
04/2025 was registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471,
120B, 34 IPC and Sections 30 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act.
5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
in both the cases submits that the case has been registered against the
petitioners alleging that the subject land is jangal-jhari and protected
forest land, that was the subject matter before this Court in writ
petition being WP(C) No.593 of 2017 and by the order dated
14.06.2018, after considering the provisions of Indian Forest Act and
Bihar Land Reforms Act, the Court has been pleased to reject the
State Government' contention that the said land was forest land and
also upheld the jamabandi of the writ petitioner holding it to be
rayati land. He next submits that the said order of single judge was
challenged in LPA No.786 of 2018 and on 05.11.2020, which was
dismissed and that order of Division Bench was taken before
Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.8108 of 2021, however, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to dismiss the SLP on
06.07.2021. He next submits that the false criminal case has been
lodged against the petitioners. He also submits that so far as Shailesh
Kumar Singh is concerned, he was the power attorney holder of Izhar
Hussain, who happened to be the land owner, for which the case has
been lodged. He next submits that so far Bimal Kumar Agarwal is
concerned, he is the director of the Company, which was intend to
invest on the said land and there is certain agreement between
Shailesh Kumar Singh and the Company namely Rajbir Construction
2026:JHHC:4269
and Bimal Kumar Agarwal is the director of the Rajbir Construction.
He next submits that Rs.03 crore has been transferred by Bimal
Kumar Agarwal in another company' account namely M/s Umaayush
Construction, which was being operated by the son of Shailesh
Kumar Singh. He next submits that one CP Case No.558 of 2018 was
also lodged against the petitioners, which on contest was dismissed
on 08.06.2023 and the petitioner Shailesh Kumar Singh was
acquitted. He also submits that another complaint case was filed
being Complaint Case No.373 of 2023, which was withdrawn by
order dated 22.09.2021 and CP Case No.1031 of 2018 was dismissed
on 31.01.2025. He further submits that another case being Sector-12
P.S. Case No.50 of 2016 was also lodged against the petitioners,
which was challenged before this Court and this Court has been
pleased to quash the said proceeding by the order dated 24.06.2024
in Cr.M.P. No.444 of 2017. He next submits that the Izhar Hussain is
the land owner and he has executed the Power of Attorney to
Shailesh Kumar Singh and Izhar Hussain has been arrested by CID
and Izhar Hussain and Akhtar Hussain, two of the accused persons
have been granted regular bail. He submits that Punit Kumar
Agarwal, who is another director of Rajbir Construction Pvt. Ltd.
was arrested and he has also been granted regular bail in BA
No.7659 of 2025 by the order dated 22.08.2025. He then submits that
if there is any dispute, that is civil in nature and for that the Forest
Department is required to move before the competent Court of civil
jurisdiction. On instruction, he further submits that now it has been
2026:JHHC:4269
revealed that the Forest Department has filed Civil Suit, which is
pending. On these grounds, he submits that the Petitioners may
kindly be granted anticipatory bail.
6. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, appearing along with Mr. Deepankar,
opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail and submits that the
connivance of the certain government officials have also been found
in the investigation and pursuant to that Circle Officer of Chas has
already been dismissed from service, as the land in question is
belonging on the said irregularities done in connivance with the
petitioners. He also submits that certain facts were concealed by the
government officials and in view of that in the present FIR, the
government officials are also made accused. He further submits that
it has been revealed in the investigation that mutation case No. 1317
volume 7 / 2012-13, was in the name of Smt. Dimpal Devi, wherein
it has been claimed through this jamabandi, the said jamabandi was
opened in the name of Izhar Hussain, who is said to be the alleged
land owner and that has come in Para 193 of the case diary.
7. He next submits that one Title Suit No. 03 of 1987 was
instituted by one Tikait Rameshwar Narayan Singh and the said title
suit was dismissed on 29/6/2012 and it was decided in favor of the
State. He next submits that due to connivance of the government
officials, a joint inquiry committee report dated 9/6/2016 was not
submitted before the government as well as before the High Court
and in LPA Court. He next submits that the jamabandi No. 1665 was
created only in the year 2012 and that was obtained by a forged rent
2026:JHHC:4269
receipt of the year 1966. He next submits that while earlier
proceedings were going on, the First Appeal No.64 of 2020, was
pending arising out of Title Suit No.03 of 1987, was not brought to
the knowledge of the High Court. He next submits that the sale deed
of the year 1993 being sale deed No. 191 of 1993, which was
registered in the district of Purulia and on correspondence made by
the State, the district registrar of Purulia, it has been informed that
those documents are not available and that has been brought in the
counter affidavit filed by the Forest Department, at page No.241. He
next submits that 103 acres of land was transferred in favor of
Bokaro Steel Limited by the Forest Department on 24/5/1962. By
way of referring Para 153 of case diary, he submits that it has come
that the letter No. 1642 dated 9/6/2010 was furnished to letter No.
4581 dated 21/4/2025, wherein the plot No.426 and 450 measuring
30.35 acres and 55.40 acres situated at mauza Titulia, Thana No. 38
were transferred to the Bokaro Steel Limited. In the investigation, it
has further revealed that co-accused Izhar Hussain's grand-father
Samruddin Ansari had four sons namely Badababu Ansari, Sahid
Ansari, Sardar Ansari and Gafoor Ansari, all of whom were
employees of Bokaro Steel Limited. He also submits that from the
examination of service record of those persons, it has been revealed
that the date of the birth of their father Samruddin Ansari was
recorded as 26/3/1924. As such, on the date of the purported auction
sale deed dated 20/9/1933, Samruddin Ansari, who is the father of
Izhar Hussain was only about 9 years and 5 months old and that has
2026:JHHC:4269
come in Para No.148 of the case diary. He also submits that when he
was 9 years and 5 months old, the background has been made that on
the obtaining of the said land on the auction sale of the year 1933. He
submits that when the father was in such a tender age, it was
impossible that he would have been purchased the said land on the
auction sale. He also submits that in the enquiry, it has been revealed
that Samruddin Ansari @ Sameer Mahato are the one person and he
is said to be the grandfather. By way of referring Para 243 of the case
diary, he submits that it has been recorded therein that Samruddin
Ansari used to make signature and he is not known by other name. In
this background, he further submits that Hibbanama, purportedly
executed by Samruddin Ansari with the co-accused of Izhar Hussain,
grandfather making a thumb impression is appears to be false and
fabricated.
8. He further submits that a three-member committee was
constituted to enquire into the matter and upon submission report, it
was revealed that the land in question situated at mauza Tetulia
Thana No.38, Khata No.59 and Plot No. 426 of 450 was recorded as
protected forest in the Bihar Gazette dated 9.7.1958.
9. He also submits that the Jamabandi No. 70 which was
purportedly opened bears no signature of any competent authority
and contains only endorsement that Jambandi is registered as per the
order of the Circle Officer. He also submits that even the case
number is not disclosed therein. He also refers to Para 451 of the
case diary and submits that by the letter dated 7/8/2025, Head of the
2026:JHHC:4269
Department, Bengali language was requested to translate Bengali
Deed No.311 of 1893 and Deed No.5018 of 1993. Upon translation
and examination, it was emerged that the land purchased by the co-
accused Izhar Hussain through auction sell held on 20/9/1933. It is
revealed that the land was surrendered on 25/11/1933 indicating that
it was not validly auctioned. He also submits that in view of that it is
clear that the auction sale in favor of Izhar Hussain's grandfather was
forged and fabricated and the petitioners along with other co-accused
persons have committed fraud with the intention of unlawful
misappropriating of forest land.
10. He also invites the attention of the Court at Para 340 of the case
diary and submits that the petitioner has filed an NOC issued by the
forest department and that was found to be forged and that has come
in Para 420, 379 & 340 of the case diary. Para 337 of the case diary,
Akhtar Hussain, who is another accused has confessed that steps on
behalf of Izhar Hussain and Akhtar Hussain on mutation in Register-
II was taken by the petitioner Shailesh Kumar Singh. On these
grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may not be granted to these
petitioners, as there is serious allegation of taking away the forest
land of 103 acres.
11. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties, the court has gone through the material
available on record including the contents of Annexures as well as
the case diary and the counter affidavit filed by the State of
Jharkhand as well as the Forest Department and during the course of
2026:JHHC:4269
Court's proceeding, the case diary was handed over to the Court.
12. There is no doubt that there are certain cases, which have been
lodged against the petitioners as has been noted in the submission of
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have been quashed
or withdrawn or the petitioners have been acquitted. However, it has
to be taken into note that facts as has been disclosed in the counter
affidavit as well as one Title Suit No. 03 of 1987 and of the First
Appeal No. 64 of 2015 have not been brought to the knowledge of
the court in the earlier proceedings. It has been pointed out by the
learned counsel appearing for the State that government officials are
also accused in the present case and one of the circle officer, who is
heading at that time as the circle officer of Chas has already been
dismissed from the service for the said connivance along with the
petitioners. In Paragraph No.153 of the case diary, it has revealed
that on the basis of the letter No. 1642, the plot No. 426 & 450
measuring 30.5 acres and 45.50 acres situated at Mauza Tetulia,
Thana No.38, Bokaro were transferred to the Bokaro Steel Limited
by the forest department on 24/5/1962. The grandfather of the co-
accused Izhar Hussain had four sons: Badababu Ansari, Sahid
Ansari, Sardar Ansari and Ghafoor Ansari, and all were the
employees of the Bokaro Steel Limited. Their service records have
been examined and the date of birth of Samruddin Ansari has been
recorded as 26/3/1924 and the auction sale was taken place on 28 th
September 1933, all these have been revealed in Para 140 of the case
diary, that the father of Samruddin Ansari is only nine years and five
2026:JHHC:4269
months old. The questions mark is there, how a tender aged boy had
purchased the said huge land on the basis of auction sale. In Para 243
of the case diary, the Samruddin Ansari is said to be also Sameer
Mahato and it has been revealed that the Samruddin Ansari and
Sameer Mahato are the same person, wherein it has been argued that
Samruddin Mahato was the grandfather of Izhar Hussain. Prima
facie, it clearly suggests that mischiefs have been done. Plea has
been taken of Mutation Case No. 1317 of 12-13, by which the name
of Izhar Hussain has been said to be mutated, however, in Para 193
of the case diary, it has been revealed that the said case was instituted
by Smt. Dimple Devi and not by the Izhar Hussain and said Dimple
Devi is the wife of Santosh Kumar Singh. Samruddin Ansari and
Sameer Mahato were similar person he was signing the document in
the name of Sameer Mahato as it has come in Para 243 of the case
diary pointed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro, wherein the
said auction sale is said to be purchased on the basis of thumb
impression, which further suggests that in creating the auction sale
deed, mischiefs have been done.
13. A three-member committee has reported as a stated in Para 19
of the counter affidavit filed by the State that Jamabandi No.70,
which was purported to be opened in favor of Izhar Hussain was
having no signature of any competent authority and that contains
only an endorsement stating Jamabandi register as was the order of
the Circle Officer. In the said order, it is not mentioned either the
case number or the purported date of order authorizing the opening
2026:JHHC:4269
of Jamabandi. In the counter affidavit of the Forest Department, the
office of the District Registrar, Purulia has replied to the Divisional
Forest Officer, Bokaro, wherein it has been disclosed that with regard
to the sale certificate of 191 of 1933 and in reply to the DFO,
Bokaro, the inquiry committee was formed on 10/5/2023 under the
chairmanship of the District Registrar, Purulia and the inquiry
committee submitted report on 21/5/2023 directing the record keeper
of the district record room to search out of everything related to sale
certificate 191 of 1993 and it has been further pointed out that every
relevant document related to searching and copying of the said
period including 25/04/2015 like the concerned page (24-30) of the
respective search register, related receipt books (1556 and 1557) and
the volume No.58 for 1933, purported to contain the true copy of
191/1933 are not existent and it is not possible to ascertain whether
the certified copy of 191/1933 had actually been supplied from the
district record room. That is the report of the District Registrar,
Purulia contained in the counter affidavit filed by the Forest
Department further strengthen the case of the state.
14. The Parameters of anticipatory bail applications and regular bail
applications are different. The other co-accused persons have been
granted regular bail by this Court and they have not been provided
the privilege of anticipatory bail. There are allegations against these
petitioners of manipulating the documents of the government forest
land and for that one of the circle officer of Chas has lost his job, as
it has been pointed out that he has connived with the petitioners. The
2026:JHHC:4269
other government officials are also facing the prosecution arising out
of the same FIR. The company of Bimal Kumar Agarwal being
Rajbir construction has transferred of Rs. 3.4 crore in the company
namely Umaayush Construction, which is being of operated by the
son of Shailesh Kumar Singh. As such, the connivance of Bimal
Kumar Agarwal cannot be ruled out. In the attending facts and
circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail
to these petitioners.
15. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected and
these petitions are disposed of rejecting the prayer.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
16.02.2026
R.Kumar
