IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 315 of 2025 ------ 1. Sarita Devi, aged about 24 years, wife of Pintu Yadav 2. Kunti Devi, aged about 51 years, wife of Meghnath Yadav 3. Kusumari Devi @ Fulmati Devi, aged about 53 years, wife of Palku Yadav 4. Suchita Devi @ Suchita Kumari, aged about 30 years, daughter of Pratap Yadav and wife of Palku Yadav 5. Sangita Devi, aged about 32 years, wife of Manoj Yadav 6. Ram Ganesh Yadav @ Ramganesh Yadav, aged about 64 years, s/o late Sukhadi Yadav All residents of Village-Kailan, P.O.-Township, P.S.- Bhawanathpur, Dist.-Garhwa, Jharkhand … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. L.C.N., Shahedeo, Advocate : Mr. Yash R. Gupta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 23.01.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Bhawnathpur P.S. Case No.99 of 2024 registered under sections 341/323/325/307/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons attempted to murder the daughter of the informant. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and for the selfsame occurrence, from the side of the petitioners, Bhawnathpur P.S. Case No. 100 of 2024 was instituted and there was a free fight between the parties consequent upon the informant party calling the co-accused-Kavita Devi to be a daain and attempting to murder her. It is then submitted that the petitioners have no intention to kill anybody and the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. It is then submitted that the petitioners undertake to furnish sufficient security including cash security and also undertake to cooperate with the investigation of the case and further undertake that they will not annoy or disturb the informant, victim or any of their family members in any manner during the pendency of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the abovenamed petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail on depositing cash security of Rs. 10,000/- each and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1st Class, Nagar Untari, Garhwa, in connection with Bhawnathpur P.S. Case No.99 of 2024 with the condition that the petitioners will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish their mobile numbers and a copy of their Aadhar Cards in the court below with the undertaking that they will not change their mobile numbers during the pendency of the case with further condition that they will not annoy or disturb the informant, victims or any of their family members in any manner during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-