( 2025:JHHC:23453 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 4043 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4043 of 2025 1. Darbari Mahato, aged about 44 years, S/o Nand Lal Mahato, resident of Vill.- Kanchanpur, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand 2. Dwarika Prasad Mahato, aged about 31 years, S/o Tribhuwan Mahato, resident of Vill.- Kanchanpur, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand … Petitioners -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. ----- 07/13.08.2025 The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No.290 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 126(2), 329(4), 115(2), 76, 352, 351 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 and 4 of Witch Craft Act, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, he has already been apprehended and in view of that, he is not pressing this application so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned. 3. In view of the above, this application is dismissed as not pressed, so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, there are general and omnibus allegations against him. He submits that petitioner no.2 has been falsely implicated in the case. He also submits that co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in A.B.A. No.1574 of 2025 and in view of that, he may kindly be granted anticipatory bail. ( 2025:JHHC:23453 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 4043 of 2025 5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submits that heinous allegations are there against petitioner no.2 and in view of that, his prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 6. The Court has gone through the contents of the FIR and finds that there is direct allegation against petitioner no.2 for stripping the informant and even she was forced to eat debris. 7. So far as anticipatory bail with regard to other co-accused persons are concerned, the Court finds that by way of depositing case security of Rs.10,000/-, they have been granted anticipatory bail. 8. It is well-known that if the bail is being considered by the Court, the Court is required to only consider the parameters of granting bail or rejecting the bail and no such condition can be put, which are not the parameters of granting regular bail or anticipatory bail. 9. So far as other co-accused persons are concerned to whom anticipatory bail has been granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, there is no direct allegation against them. 10. In view of the above, this Court is not accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner so far as granting anticipatory bail to other co-accused persons are concerned. 11. In that view of the matter, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no.2 is, hereby, rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/