[2025:JHHC:25137] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4709 of 2025 1.Birsa Mahto Son of Laldev Mahto age about 39 years son of Laldev Mahto resident of Tebardag near Hanuman Mandir Sandi, P.Ο.-Sandii & P.S. Rajrappa, District Ramgarh, State Jharkhand. 2. Binod Mahto age about 37 years Son of Laldev Mahto, Village- Tebardag P.O. & P.S. Rajrappa, District Ramgarh State-Jharkahand. 3. Suresh Mahto age about 60 years, son of Jagan Mahto, Resident of Bhagwati Mandap Post- Sandi P.S- Rajrappa District-Ramgarh. 4. Laldeo Mahto age about 62 Years Son of Jagan Mahto Resident of village Tebardag P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh District- Ramgarh. 5. Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Mahto, age about 30 Years, Son of Suresh Mahto, Near Hanuman Mandir Project Tebardag, P.O Sandi P.S. Rajrappa Disrict-Ramgarh. ..... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. P.D. Agarwal, Spl.P.P. ------ 06/ 25.08.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Spl.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 75 of 2025, registered for the alleged offence under Sections 126, 115, 352, 351, 109 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there are general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners and the petitioners’ side has firstly lodged the FIR and thereafter the [2025:JHHC:25137] -2- present FIR has been lodged and the injury is simple in nature and the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent, as disclosed in para-10 of the petition. He further submits that in the similar circumstance, the other co-accused has already been provided the privilege of anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 4373 of 2025. 4. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that in the impugned order, injury is said to be grievous, as such, anticipatory bail of the petitioners may kindly be rejected. 5. Considering that there is case and counter case between the parties and there are general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners and further in the similar circumstance, the other co-accused has already been provided the privilege of anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 4373 of 2025, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, the petitioners, named above, are directed to surrender before the learned court within three weeks from today and in the event of their surrender / arrest, the petitioners, named above, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh, in connection with Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 75 of 2025, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-