( 2025:JHHC:29156 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 5360 of 2025 1. Sivananda @ A. Shivanandan Gounder, aged about 53 years 2. A. Kannan @ A. Kanan Gounder, aged about 63 years Both are sons of late Ammu Gounder, resident of Zone No. 1B, Sadhudera, B.Ed, College, Birsanagar, P.O. and P.S. Birsanagar, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum ...... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners :Mr. Agnivesh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P. 02/ 22.09.2025: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Telco P.S. Case No. 47 of 2025, registered under sections 319, 318, 338, 336, and 340 of the BNS, 2023 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and the case has been lodged by the sister-in-law. 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 serious allegation is there of impersonating the younger brother by the petitioner no.2 as the son-in-law of the informant and on the basis of that employment has been taken. 5. Looking into contents of F.I.R, it transpires that petitioner no.2 is said to be brother of Sivananda @ A. Shivanandan Gounder who is petitioner no.1 and he has been shown as son-in-law of the informant and got employment. There is direct allegation of impersonating and the informant has gone in the office for employment of the son of the informant ( 2025:JHHC:29156 ) as her husband was working in TTCA office and assurance was there that son of the informant will be duly provided compassionate appointment on attaining the age of majority however prior to that by way impersonating the petitioner no.1 got the appointment in the aforesaid manner. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Dt.22.09.2025 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-