A.B.A./5596/2026 of MUNIRA KHATUN Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 7 October 2026

1. Munira Khatun, aged about 46 years, W/o Md. Kalam Ansari, R/o Vill-Kutte, P.O.- Sandi, P.S.- Sikidiri, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand, 835219.

2. Md. Jishan Joha, aged about 26 years, S/o- Md Kalam Ansari, R/o- Vill- Kutte, P.O.- Sandi, P.S.- Sikidiri, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand, 835219. .... .... …. Petitioner

Versus The State of Jharkhand

.... .... .... Opposite Party

------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shashank Shekhar No.3, Advocate For the State

: Mr. Sudhir Kr. Mahto, Addl.P.P.

------ Order No:-02 Dated:-07-10-2026

Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Sikidiri P.S. Case No. 26 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner no.2 namely -Md. Kalam Ansari took Rs.14,26,000/- from the informant which the informant collected from a member of physically challenged group with the promise to give them good returns by using the said money for the purpose of purchasing the land and selling the same, but Md. Kalam Ansari did not repay the same. It is next submitted that the only allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were there with Md. Kalam Ansari, at the time of transaction between the informant and Md. Kalam Ansari and the petitioner no.2 is also a ‘Signatory’ to an agreement dated 20.07.2026, between Md. Kalam Ansari and the informant as a witness by which Md. Kalam Ansari promised to return Rs.2,00,000/- within six months. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that neither there is any allegation of entrustment of any money to the petitioners nor there is any allegation against the petitioners of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. It is also submitted that the main allegation is against Md. Kalam Ansari and Tabrez. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to furnish sufficient security amount and also undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case and further undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the informant or any of his family members in any manner during the pendency of the case. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of two weeks from the date of this order, the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M.F.C. Ranchi in connection with Sikidiri P.S. Case No. 26 of 2026 with the condition that the petitioners will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish their mobile numbers and a copy of their Aadhar Card in the Court below during the pendency of the case, with further condition that they will not annoy or disturb the informant or any of his family members in any manner during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 07.10.2026 Amar/