( 2025:JHHC:11683 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2992 of 2025 ------ 1. Sakendra Uraon @ Billu Uraon, age about 45 years, Son of Late Tulsi Uraon, 2. Ravindra Bhuiyan, age about 30 years, Son of Late Haricharan Bhuiyan, Both are residents of Village –Ranki Khurd, P.O. & P.S. – Satbarwa, District –Palamau. … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kr. No.2, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Mrs. Rakhi Rani, Advocate : Mr. Vishnu Pad Singh, Advocate : Ms. Shabana Parween, Advocate ------ Order No.02 Dated- 16.04.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioners have moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. Case No. 74 of 2025 arising out of Satbarwa P.S. Case No.119 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 57 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 190, 191, 126, 127, 115, 117, 118, 109(1) of the B.N.S., 2023 and vide order dated 29.11.2024 Section 103(1) of the B.N.S., 2023 has been added. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were the members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of the assembly assaulted Arjun Mehta and his wife Chameli Devi and inflicted injuries over Arjun Mehta with sharp cutting weapons like sword and Gadasa (heavy sharp cutting weapon) and Arjun Mehta succumbed to the injuries thus sustained; while the four fingers of the left palm of his wife were severed. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and are general and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that the co-accused persons have already been admitted to bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 17.02.2025, 19.03.2025 & 10.02.2025 in B.A. Nos. 1272 of 2025, 2145 of 2025 & 1076 of 2025 respectively. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be also admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the witnesses particularly Radhika Oraon and Mantu Yadav, who are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence; have categorically stated that the petitioner no.1 assaulted on the left palm of Chameli Devi resulting in severing of four fingers of her palm and then the petitioner no.1 also assaulted Arjun Mehta with sword and thereafter the petitioner no.2 assaulted on the head of Arjun Mehta with an axe and besides these two petitioners, Pappu Bhuiyan also assaulted Arjun Mehta with a Gadasa. It is next submitted that therefore, the allegation against the petitioners stands in a worse footing than that of the co-accused persons; who have been admitted to bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court, as the allegation against the co-accused persons were general and omnibus in nature. It is then submitted that, there is every chance of the petitioners absconding and tampering with the evidence, if admitted to bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not to be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners of assaulting Arjun Mehta with sharp cutting weapons in a brutal manner repeatedly resulting in death of Arjun Mehta and also severing the four fingers of left palm of Chameli Devi as also the chance of their absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the above- named petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu-Gunjan/