2025:JHHC:11727 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3362 of 2024 1. Shanti Ram Manjhi, S/o late Dhiru Manjhi 2. Babulal Manjhi @ Babu Ram @ Babu Ram Kumar Majhi, S/o Hajri Manjhi 3. Ladhu Manjhi @ Laxman Kumar Manjhi, S/o Hajari Manjhi All are residents of village Kumardih, PO: Jhalbarda, PS: Chandankiyari, District Bokaro. ….. Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite party. With A.B.A. No. 3137 of 2024 1. Arti Devi, W/o Umacharan Manjhi @ Umapad Manjhi 2. Umacharan Manjhi @ Umapad Manjhi @ Uma Pada Majhi 3. Hajari Manjhi Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 both are sons of late Chandrakant Manjhi @ Chand Mukh Manjhi. 4. Naru Manjhi @ Nadu Manjhi, son of late Dhiru Manjhi. All are R/o village: Kumardih, PO: Jhalbarda, PS: Chandankiyari, District Bokaro ….. Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite party. ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rajnish Vardhan, APP For the Informant : Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate ----- 11/21.04.2025: Heard the parties. 2. These anticipatory bail applications under sections 438 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest for the offences registered under sections 341/323/324/325/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. 3. The learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 4. These are the cases where the dispute arose in respect of occupation of the land in question. It is alleged that the informant and others were digging the field when the accused persons came and challenged that the said land belongs to them. When the informant asked these petitioners to show papers of the land, 2025:JHHC:11727 they refused and it is alleged that they surrounded father and the son and started assaulting them. Though there is specific allegation that Parmanand Manjhi has assaulted the father of the informant on his head with axe but from the FIR and the statements of the witnesses recorded in the case diary, I find that the allegation against these petitioners are also of assaulting them. 5. Considering the allegations of assault, I am of the opinion that these are not fit cases for granting anticipatory bail. Hence, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned trial court and on their surrender the case will be considered considering the order passed by the learned trial court in respect of the other co-accused. 6. Accordingly, both anticipatory bail applications are dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J. ) KNR/ 2025:JHHC:11727