[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Surendra Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 February, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
[2026:JHHC:2609]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 6034 of 2025
Surendra Kumar, aged about 33 years, S/o Shankar
Saw, R/o Krishnanagar, P.O., P.S. Masratu and
District Hazaribagh.
..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Rajendra Keshari, aged about 46 years, S/o Late
Harihar Saw, R/o Village Amber Khoiya, P.O., P.S.-
Dhurki, District-Garhwa.
..... ... Opposite Parties
with
A.B.A. No. 6035 of 2025
Vikash Kumar, aged about 36 years, S/o Surendra
Prasad Singh, R/o Itki Road, ITI Bus Stand, P.O., P.S.
Hehal and District-Ranchi.
..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Rajendra Keshari, aged about 46 years, S/o Late
Harihar Saw, R/o Village Amber Khoiya, P.O., P.S.-
Dhurki, District-Garhwa.
..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate.
: Mrs. Akriti Shree, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashishtha, Spl.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
------
03/ 02.02.2026 Both these applications arise out of the same FIR, as such,
both these applications are being heard together and disposed of with
this common order.
2. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners,
learned Spl.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the
informant in respective cases.
3. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection
with Dhurki P.S. Case No. 104 of 2023, registered for the offence under
[2026:JHHC:2609]
Sections 102-B, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474 and 420 of the Indian
Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Nagar Untari, Garhwa.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the petitioner in A.B.A. No. 6034 of 2025 was posted as
Revenue Sub-Inspector, Dhurki, Garhwa from 20.08.2018 and now he
has been transferred to Hazaribagh. He next submits that the petitioner
in A.B.A. No. 6035 of 2025, is working on the post of Circle Inspector,
Dhurki, Garhwa. He then submits that the petitioners are not involved
in the mutation of the land in question in favour of Surendra Prajapati,
Manju Devi and Manmati Devi resepctively. He further submits that
the mutation has been done in favour of three persons under the Bihar
Tenant's Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 and particularly
he refers to Sections 12 and 13 of the said Act. He also submits that
three accused persons have moved before the DCLR in Transfer
Appeal Case No. 52 of 2023, which was allowed by the order dated
02.01.2024, wherein the order passed by the Circle Officer has been set
aside. He further submits that in view of setting aside of the said order,
the land in question has already been restored in favour of the
informant. He also submits that the Circle Officer has passed the order
of mutation on 17.06.2023 and the appeal was preferred before the
LRDC only after three days. He submits that it is well settled that only
by way of mutation, the right, title and interest over the property will
not be decided. On these grounds, he submits the anticipatory bail may
kindly be provided to the petitioners.
4. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and learned
counsel appearing for the informant jointly opposed the prayer and
submit that in absence of any valid registered document, the mutation
has been done in favour of three persons, only on the basis of reports of
[2026:JHHC:2609]
these two petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for the State further
submits that it has come in the case diary that in connivance of
Registry office and staffs and by using the official stamp, prepared four
forged registered documents after obtaining the signature of Registrar
and opened the online jamabandi, whereas all the forged documents are
in the name of four others. On these grounds, they jointly submit that
anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner in A.B.A. No. 6034 of 2025 was
posted as Revenue Sub-Inspector, Dhurki, Garhwa from 20.08.2018
and now he has been transferred to Hazaribagh and further the
petitioner in A.B.A. No. 6035 of 2025, is working on the post of Circle
Inspector, Dhurki, Garhwa and it has come in paras-94 and 95 of the
case diary that in absence of any registered document, the mutation
was done by the Circle Officer. It is also an admitted fact that the
reports have been submitted by these two petitioners, on the basis of
which, the mutation was done. Further it is very strange how three of
the accused persons, in whose favour, the mutation was done, they
have moved before the appellate authority for cancellation of the
jamabandi, prima facie it suggests that these petitioners have instigated
those persons to file appeal to save their skin. Further this practice is
very rampant in the State of Jharkhand.
6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am
not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, named above.
As such, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
7. Interim orders, granted earlier, in respective cases stand
vacated.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated:-02.02.2026
Amitesh/-
