Sumitra Kumari Baraik Vs the State of Jharkhand through Anti Corruption Bureau

2. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioners who are apprehending arrest in connection with A.C.B. Ranchi P.S. Case No. 01/2026 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/120B/109 of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding to sections 318/336/338/340/61/49 of BNS, 2023) and under section 12/13(2) read with section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, said to be pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi.

¶14

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners are ladies who have purchased the property involved in the present case through registered sale-deeds and it is alleged that the property is a part of the land acquired for RIMS. The learned Senior counsel submits that it is not in dispute that the land was acquired for RIMS way back in the year, 1968, but the sale-deeds were executed after due verification from the Land Acquisition Office and that the property has not been included in the prohibited list.

¶15

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the petitioners being bonafide purchasers have also cooperated with the investigation and got their statement recorded and they have no role in the alleged offence. The learned Senior counsel submits that at the time of purchase the property was standing in the

¶16

2026:JHHC:20302

¶17

name of the vendor, inasmuch as, it was duly mutated in the revenue records.

¶18

5. Learned Senior counsel has also submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and the offence, if any, has been committed by the government officials in the matter of transfer of acquired land of RIMS though the portion of the property has been purchased by the petitioners.

¶19

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party- ACB has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that the vendor of the petitioners namely, Saunmait Devi, in her statement recorded under section 180 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has stated that way back in the year 2015, when online entry in Register-II was being made, some land mafias, which includes the names of the husbands of the petitioners, had approached Saunmait Devi stating that the property was standing in her name and they wanted to purchase it and she would not have to do anything except going to the registry office to put her thumb impression. The learned counsel submits that the connivance of the husbands of the petitioners is apparent from the statement of Saunmait Devi.

¶20

7. To this, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Saunmait Devi is not an accused in the present case and it is not in dispute that in the Register-II, entry was made in the name of the Saunmait Devi.

¶21

8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances which have been placed by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners based on the materials on record and the endorsement made in the registered saledeed itself that the property is neither mentioned in the prohibited list nor it is covered by any land acquisition and also considering the fact that the petitioners have cooperated with the investigation so far, the petitioners are entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of their arrest by the police or surrender within 2 weeks from today , the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) each with two

¶22

2

¶23

2026:JHHC:20302

¶24

sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in connection with A.C.B. Ranchi P.S. Case No. 01/2026 subject to the following conditions: -

¶25

(i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioners.

¶26

(ii) The other bailor should be their close relative.

¶27

(iii) The petitioners will deposit a self-attested copy of their Aadhar Card along with their mobile number before the learned court which they will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court.

¶28

(iv) The petitioners shall fully co-operate with the trial and attend the court on each and every date failing which the bail bond will be cancelled by the learned court.

¶29

9. The instant application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX”.

¶30

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶31

Date of Order: 09.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:10.07.2026

¶32

3

Sumitra Kumari Baraik v. the State of Jharkhand through Anti Corruption Bureau

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumitra Kumari Baraik v. the State of Jharkhand through Anti Corruption Bureau

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalan Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kishan Mandal Alias Kishan Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajit Turi Vs State of Jharkhand

Guddu Miyan Alias Anul Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sona Bachcha Yadav Alias Sona Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Mahto Alias Anil Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand