IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.92 of 2025 Krishn Kumar Pandit, aged about 17 year, through his father Bandhan Pandit @ Badha Pandit, aged about 46 year, S/o Late Narayan Pandit, R/o Panchayat Kendua, Village Arwa Tand, P.O. Jawahar Nagar, P.S. Birni, District Giridih, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dayanand Pandit, S/o Nehal Pandit, R/o Orawatand, P.O. Jawahar Nagar, P.S. Birni, Dist. Giridih (Jharkhand). 3. Nehal Pandit, S/o Late Narayan Pandit, R/o Orawatand, P.O. Jawahar Nagar, P.S. Birni, Dist. Giridih (Jharkhand) 4. Pinki Devi, W/o Dayanand Pandit R/o Orawatand, P.O. Jawahar Nagar, P.S. Birni, Dist. Giridih (Jharkhand) 5. Sudha Devi, W/o Nehal Pandit, R/o Orawatand, P.O. Jawahar Nagar, P.S. Birni, Dist. Giridih (Jharkhand) … Opp. Parties Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar Mishra, Adv. Ms. Neha Agrawal, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl. P.P. Order No.02/Dated- 17.01.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State. The present miscellaneous petition has been filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party Nos.2 to 5 vide order dated 24.07.2024 passed in A.B.A. No.1229 of 2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was grievous injury on head caused by iron rod (sabal) to the petitioner and his medical report also shows fracture on right parietal bone and petitioner was hospitalized for ten days and deprived from discharging the normal pursuit of daily life. In view of direct and specific allegation, the opposite parties were not entitled for anticipatory bail and the above serious kind of injury was not considered by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih. Therefore, impugned order of granting bail is absolutely not warranted under the facts and circumstances of the case and bail granted to the opposite party Nos.2 to 5 is liable to be cancelled. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State has defended the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the case and from perusal of impugned order, I do not think proper to issue notice to the opposite parties rather considering the nature of injuries caused to the petitioner and the period of hospitalization as admittedly was ten days and there are some minor surgical operations, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, therefore, this petition is dismissed. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sachin