( 2025:JHHC:18003 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3536 of 2025 ------ Shiv Pujan Gope, aged about 52 years, S/O late Gorachand Gope, R/O Village – Kasiyatand, PO – Kalyanpur, PS – Barwadda, District – Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 3537 of 2025 ------ 1. Bhim Mahato, aged about 50 years, S/O late Nanu Mahato. 2. Digambar Mahato, aged about 50 years, S/O late Nanu Mahato. 3. Mantu Gope, aged about 50 years, S/O Ashu Gope. 4. Prakash Mahato @ Prakash Kumar, aged about 25 years, S/O Pawan Mahato. 5. Chandan Gope, aged about 21 years, S/O Shiv Pujan Gope. 6. Ranglal Mahato, aged about 47 years, S/O late Nanu Mahato. 7. Rahul Mahato @ Dhanshwar Saw, aged about 23 years, S/O Tipan Saw. (All residents of village – Kasiyatand, PO – Kalyanpur, PS – Barwadda, District – Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ayush Kumar Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, APP : Mr. V. S. Sahay, APP ----- 04/ 04th July 2025 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of under Section 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, as the petitioners have been allegedly implicated in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No. 78 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126 (2), 303 (2), 308 (2), 308 (3), 324 (4), 324 (5), 352, 351(2), 3 (5) of the B.N.S., pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate – 1st Class, Dhanbad. ( 2025:JHHC:18003 ) 2 3. There is an allegation against the petitioners that they have entered a Coal Depot and thereafter created ruckus. Thereafter someone demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakh Only) by way of extortion. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners were issued notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and they are co-operating with the investigation and they have appeared before the Investigating Officer. Furthermore, they are ready to appear before the Investigating Officer on each and every date whenever Investigating Officer calls. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the APP after going through the Case Diary supplied by the petitioners especially referring to Paragraph No. 52 submits that the petitioners though have appeared and got their statement recorded before the Police but the same was not satisfactory. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that in the CCTV of the Coal Depot, each and every moment and involvement has been captured and it is the petitioners and others who had entered and created ruckus in the said Coal Depot. He further submits that they have set fire on truck which was there. 7. Considering the submission of the petitioners especially the fact that they have appeared before the Investigating Officer and Investigating Officer has not arrested them, clearly gives an impression to this Court that there is no apprehension of the petitioners of being arrested. Thus, these anticipatory bail applications of the petitioners is misconceived. 8. Accordingly, these anticipatory bail applications are disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Aditi