2025:JHHC:13398 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.2432 of 2025 ------ Kishun Mahto @ Kishan Kumar, son of Shankar Mahto, resident of village Jaruwa, PO Kurumba, PS Chandrapura, District Bokaro … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Pinki Kumari, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P. ----- 04/ 02.05.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for offences registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 354-B, 379, 427, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that while the informant and his wife were going in the motorcycle this petitioner and others on the car came and intercepted them and assaulted the informant and his wife and also snatched the golden chain of his wife. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire allegation is false. He submits that there is no ingredient of section 379, 307 and 354B of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted that from the statement made in paragraph no. 11 of the case-diary it is found that the golden chain was not snatched rather it was found lying on the neck as torned. So far section 307 is concerned there is no injury and also no ingredients of section 354B of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail but admit that no golden chain was stolen and there is no material to suggest application of section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 2025:JHHC:13398 2 6. After hearing the parties, I have gone through the case- diary. From the case-diary especially from the statement of the independent witnesses and other related witnesses also and the statement recorded in paragraph nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14, I find that they have only stated that some scuffling was going on between the parties. None of them have stated about any incriminating circumstance before the police which can attract section 379 and 354B of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands allowed. The petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the learned court below within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on the event of his surrender or arrest, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, in connection with Chandrapura P.S. Case No.39 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No. 335 of 2024, subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be a close relative of the petitioner and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his name or in the name of his ancestors in which he is having share and to that effect, he has to file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating his share in the property. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/Cp-3