The court emphasized strict adherence to prohibitions against the unlawful transfer of property, basing its decision on the severity of allegations and the uncooperative behavior of the petitioner during investigations.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Anti-Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.).

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Hazaribagh ACB P.S. Case No.09 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 409, 467, 468 (inadvertently indicated u/s 469 in impugned order), 471, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) and 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II cum Special Judge, Vigilance (A.C.B.) Hazaribag.

3. By order dated 16.10.2025, this anticipatory bail application is restricted to Sudhir Kumar Singh, who is petitioner no.2, as Vijay Pratap Singh, who is the petitioner no.1, was already arrested.

4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that case is arising out of the complaint made to the Vigilance (A.C.B.) alleging that the petitioner is Power of Attorney holder of the recorded settlees has facilitated transfer of Khas Mahal Land situated in Hazaribagh in favour of several purchasers and that was done in contravention of the Order dated 26.07.2005 passed by High Court of Jharkhand passed in C.W.J.C. No.4200 of 2000. He further submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He next submits that by the registered deed dated 25.02.1941, the said Ganpat Rai Sarogi dedicated the land in question admeasuring 2.75 acres in favour of Deity Shri Shri Mahabir Ji and created a scheme of management through appointed Sewayat. He next submits that by a registered deed dated 29.10.1951, cancellation was sought to be done by said Ganpat Rai Sarogi and it was cancelled in its entirety and, accordingly, 1941 arrangement made by the deed was also terminated and from 1951 onwards, the land seized to be treated as indoor property. He next submits that the said Khas Mahal land was settled in favour of the heirs of the said settlors and renewal of the lease was granted from time to time including the renewal in the year 1977 and 1986 and ultimately an application was filed before the Deputy Commissioner and thereafter the State Government has sanctioned renewal of lease for 30 years which was approved by Department of Revenue and Land Reforms. He next submits that only on sanction, the petitioner, being the power of attorney holder, has transferred the said land, and apart from that, there is no allegation against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the ACB opposed the application for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and he then submits that the regular bail of the co-accused, who was also the power of attorney holder along with this petitioner, has already been rejected by this Court in B.A. No.10414 of 2025 by the Order dated 07.01.2026. He next submits that in course of investigation, the statement of one Investigating Officer namely Santosh Kumar has also been recorded under section 180 of B.N.S.S., 2023 and who is investigating the A.C.B. Ranchi P.S. Case No.9 of 2025 which was registered under sections 120B, 420, 467, 468,409, 107, 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7(13) and 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in which Vinay Kumar Choubey who is a named accused, an I.O. of the present case especially examined Investigating Officer of A.C.B. Ranchi P.S. Case No.9 of 2025 for the purposes of seeking assistance for recovery of money trail in the present case also and it has been revealed that that during the period from 01.04.2010 to 09.07.2015, an amount of Rs.3.16 Crore