( 2025:JHHC:26543 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 5011 of 2025 1. Dharam Mahto, aged about 29 years 2. Kaleswar Mahto @ Kaleshwar Mahto, aged about 24 years Both son of Mahendra Mahto, resident of village Edkiya, P.O. and P.S. Bundu, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand ...... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners :Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, A.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate 04/ 02.09.2025: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Informant. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Bundu P.S. Case No. 50/2025, registered under sections 329(4), 126(2), 115(2) and 3 (5) of B.N.S, 2023 and section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch Practices Act, 2001 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that occurrence is said to be occurred on 02.05.2025 however information to the police was provided on 03.05.2025 and F.I.R. has been registered on 10.05.2025. He submits that the petitioners and informant are ‘gotiyas’ and they are in inimical terms due to dispute with regard to narrow ‘gali’ (road). He submits that falsely case has been lodged and even section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch Practices Act, 2001 has been inserted in the F.I.R. He submits that petitioners have no criminal antecedent which is disclosed in para 7 of the petition. He submits that doctor has opined the injury grievous in nature however injury is on the forearm of the informant’s mother, that is not vital part of the body. He submits that the petitioners are agricultural labourers ( 2025:JHHC:26543 ) and used to do agricultural works in their village Edkiya in the district of Ranchi. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioners may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that allegations of assault is there. 5. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that for delay in lodging the F.I.R, the informant is not responsible as the complaint has already been made before the police on 03.05.2025. He submits that injury is grievous in nature and in view of that the petitioners may not be granted anticipatory bail. 6. It has been pointed out that the petitioners and informant are ‘gotias’ having no criminal antecedent and they are in inimical terms. The allegations against the petitioners are of assault upon the mother of the informant and calling the informant as witch and in all the sections maximum sentence is upto five years. In that view of the matter, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned court within two weeks from today and the learned court shall release the petitioners on terms and conditions and sureties as learned court deems fit and proper. 7. This anticipatory bail application is disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-