Jharkhand High Court
Md. Kallan vs State Of Jharkhand Through Acb … … … on 23 April, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2026:JHHC:11980
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 1134 of 2026
1. Md. Kallan, aged about 45 years, Son of Abdul Matin @ Abdul
2. Jai Prakash Yadav, aged about 60 years, Son of late Kanhai Yadav
... ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand through ACB ... ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM :HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
—
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Senior Advocate
For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
: Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate
—
06/23.04.2026
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
are in custody since 06.12.2025 in connection with Hazaribagh ACB
P.S. Case No.11 of 2025 corresponding to ACB Case No. 11 of 2025,
for the alleged offence registered under Sections 13(2) read with
Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code
pending in the court of learned Special Judge (ACB), Hazaribagh.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners
are the power of attorney holder with respect to some of the properties
which were sold and they were alleged to be forest land. He has
further submitted that though it is alleged that the accused persons
connived with the government officials for the purpose of transfer and
mutation of property, but the petitioners being the power of attorney
holder have no role. He has further submitted that the sale deed was
executed by virtue of general power of attorney No. IV-429 of 2011 to
one Samir Kumar Sahay through registered sale deed No. 6085 of
2011, but the government had taken out a letter No. 2612 dated
05.12.2012 cautioning the public at large not to deal with forest land.
He has submitted that the petitioners being the power of attorney
1
2026:JHHC:11980
holders are not beneficiaries of the said transactions, but he had only
executed sale deed on behalf of the owner of the property and there is
allegation that the purchasers of the property connived with the
government officials to get the property mutated in their name. The
petitioners are in custody since 06.12.2025 and charge sheet has been
submitted on 26.02.2026 for offence under Sections 13(2) read with
13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 467,
468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that the
provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act does not apply upon the
petitioners.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State
though has opposed the prayer and has referred to the counter affidavit
but the submission which has been made by the learned counsel for
the petitioners that they are the power of attorney holders and as per
the allegation the purchasers of the property connived with the
government officials to get the mutation done is not in dispute.
5. In the counter affidavit also no particular allegation has been
mentioned regarding his role in getting the mutation done in favour of
the purchasers of the property.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the aforesaid facts and the custody of the petitioners since
06.12.2025 and charge sheet having already been submitted, the
petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond
of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge
(ACB), Hazaribagh in connection with Hazaribagh ACB P.S. Case
No. 11 of 2025 corresponding to ACB Case No. 11 of 2025 on the
following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the
petitioner.
(ii) The other bailor should be his close relative.
(iii) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every
date and on account of his single default, the learned2
2026:JHHC:11980court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the
petitioner.
(iv) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his
Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the
learned court which he will not change during the
pendency of the case without prior permission of the
court.
(v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings
before the learned court below.
7. The instant bail application is allowed with the aforesaid
conditions.
8. Let a copy of this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed
with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through
‘FAX/E-mail’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
23.04.2026
Rakesh/-
Uploaded on:-27.04.2026
3