2025:JHHC:13707 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5736 of 2024 ----- 1.Parivartan Giri @ Lalu Giri 2.Vikrant Kumari Giri @ Chhotu Giri, Both s/o Vijay Giri, R/o Village- Itkhori, P.O. & P.S. Itkhori, District- Chatra .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party(s) …… CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Sr. Advocate For the State : Ms. Mahua Palit, A.P.P. …...... 08/ 07.05.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest for the offences registered under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 307, 452 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, in connection with Itkhori Police Station Case No. 16 of 2024 corresponding to GR No. 551 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M, Chatra 3. As per the prosecution story recorded in the FIR, it is alleged that the accused, accompanied by several other individuals, unlawfully entered the house of the informant while being armed with sticks and iron rods. They forcibly dragged the informant’s brother, namely Mithilesh Dangi, out of the house and brutally assaulted him. As a result of the said assault, the victim sustained injuries. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are innocent and there is no specific allegations against them. It is further submitted that the accusations are vague, and in rural areas, it's common for people to gather out of curiosity in case of commotion. Just being present doesn’t prove guilt. It is further submitted that no motive has been shown by the petitioners and there was no reason for them to attack anyone, and false accusation has been made by the informant. It is further submitted that names of the petitioners have not been mentioned in the charge-sheet. It is further submitted that the prosecution's case is weak, 2025:JHHC:13707 2 with no independent witnesses and conflicting testimonies. Therefore, the petitioners are innocent and have been wrongly implicated in this case. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the charges against the petitioners are grievous in nature and both the petitioners are named in the FIR. He submitted that from the postmortem report, it is clear that the death was caused due to head injury. He further submitted that from the statement recorded during the course of investigation it has come that few witnesses have supported the prosecution case. 6. After hearing the parties, I find that there is direct allegation against these petitioners that they had dragged the victim and assaulted him. The injury is grievous in nature and death which was caused is due to head injury. 7. Considering the aforesaid fact of involvement of the petitioners, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./Tanuj