2025:JHHC:16873 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.7023 of 2024 ------ 1. Budo Oraon 2. Lalmohan Oraon 3. Lakshu Oraon 4. Kauleshwar Oraon 5. Jitendra Oraon 6. Birendra Oraon … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Ashmani Devi … … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rahul, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate ----- 05/ 25.06.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with Chandwa P.S. Case No.31 of 2024, for offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 326, 307, 498-A and 34 IPC. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Latehar. 3. The supplementary affidavit is kept on record. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that they have assaulted the informant, who is the wife of Sakendra Oraon. It is alleged that after the death of husband of the informant, she was tortured and even thrown out of her house. There is an allegation against the in-laws’ of the informant of taking the entire money of her husband including the LIC policy. 5. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits 2025:JHHC:16873 that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. He further submits that the entire allegation is false and petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are not even in- laws of the informant, rather they are the members of the Panch, who tried to resolve the dispute. 6. Learned A.P.P. representing the State and learned counsel representing the informant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel representing the informant submits that after the interim protection was granted to these petitioners, they are forcing the informant to withdraw this case and in fact have threatened her, for which this informant has also informed the appropriate Authorities. 7. After hearing the parties, I find that there is an allegation of torture and assault and further the fact which cannot be lost sight and has been filed by way of affidavit is that after obtaining the order of stay, these petitioners are threatening the informant. Thus, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to these petitioners. 8. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant. Cp-3