2025:JHHC:18977 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3631 of 2025 ----- Rajesh Kumar, (minor), S/o Mahendra Pd. Verma @ Mahendra Kumar, R/o Village Gumo, P.O. and P.S. Telaiya District Koderma (Jharkhand) .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). ------ WITH A.B.A. No. 3272 of 2025 ……. 1. Mahendra Kumar @ Mahendra Prasad Verma, S/o Khublal Mahato 2. Mantu Prasad @ Pintu Prasad Verma, S/o Khublal Mahato Both R/o Village Gumo, P.O. and P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma (Jharkhand) .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, A.P.P. : Mr. Saket Kumar, Addl. P.P. …...... 05/ 10.07.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. These anticipatory bail applications under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, have been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No. 285 of 2024, for offences under Sections 74, 76, 115(2), 118(1), 117(3), 109, 126, 127/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The case is presently pending before the Court of Learned A.C.J.M., Koderma. 3. The case of prosecution is based on a complaint by the informant who alleges that on 15.10.2024, while she and her husband were returning home, near the four-lane road, accused Mahendra Prasad Verma grabbed her hand, and Pintu Prasad Verma tore her blouse, leaving her half naked and started teasing her. When her husband tried to help her, the accused assaulted him. Mahendra Prasad Verma, with an iron rod hit her husband's left leg and shoulder, breaking his left leg. Pintu hit his right leg with a stone, breaking that leg too. The petitioner- Rajesh Kumar then pressed both his legs, causing him severe pain. When nearby people and her Bhaisur came to help, the petitioners also assaulted her Bhaisur. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent, they have committed no offence, and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioners are being implicated due to previous enmity because of land dispute. He further submits that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent behind them. He further submits that no specific allegation has been made against the petitioners and there is no evidence that the petitioners were present at the time of occurrence. 5. The learned A.P.P appearing for the state has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the petitioners are not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail. He further submits that the petitioners are named in the FIR. He also submits that witnesses have also supported the prosecution case as per paragraph 2, 5 and 13 of case diary. 6. After hearing the parties, I find that the allegation against the petitioners is serious in nature. Considering the supporting material on record including the injury sustained by the victim’s husband and the assault on victim, I find that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No. 285 of 2024, pending in the Court of Learned A.C.J.M., Koderma, stands rejected. 7. Accordingly, both these Anticipatory Bail Applications stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./