Jharkhand High Court
A.B.A./5242/2026 of MD. MANOUWAR HUSSAIN Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 21 September 2026
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5242 of 2026 Md. Manouwar Hussain, aged about 49 years, son of Md. Siddique, resident of village:- Simla Bahal Basti, P.O. and P.S. Jharia, District:-Dhanbad. ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. Kamdew Singh aged about 50 years,
[ 2026:JHHC:28546]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 5242 of 2026
Md. Manouwar Hussain, aged about 49 years, son of Md. Siddique, resident of village:- Simla Bahal Basti, P.O. and P.S. Jharia, District:-Dhanbad.
.....
…
Petitioner
Versus
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Kamdew Singh aged about 50 years, son of late Bhairo Singh, resident of village Shamshan Road, Chiragora, P.O. and P.S. Hirapur, District: Dhanbad.
2. The State of Jharkhand.
..... … Opposite Parties
-------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate. For the State
: Mrs. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 1 : Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate. ------ 04/ 21.09.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 1-informant.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 160 of 2026, for the offence registered under Sections 316(2)/318 (4)/61(2)/335/352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He next submits that the petitioner and the informant have entered into an agreement for execution of the sale deed, however, the deed was not executed. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioner.
4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant have jointly opposed the prayer and submit that the petitioner has taken Rs. 31 lakhs and in spite of that the sale
[ 2026:JHHC:28546]
deed was not executed by him in favour of the informant. Learned counsel appearing for the informant further adds that the petitioner has entered into an agreement with the informant on 04.04.2024 and for the same land, he has also entered into a further agreement with another person on 14.08.2024. He next submits that the petitioner has also threatened the informant to eliminate him, as four persons of Vasepur are residing along with this petitioner. On these grounds, they jointly submit that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.
5. Considering that the petitioner has entered into the first agreement with the informant on 04.04.2024 and for the same land, he has also entered into a further agreement with another person on 14.08.2024, which prima facie suggests that the intention of cheating is there from the very beginning and further the allegations are also there of making a threat to the informant to eliminate him, as the four persons of Vasepur are residing along with him and in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-21.09.2026 Amitesh/-