2025:JHHC:12868 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5474 of 2024 1. Sanjeet Rajwar, S/o Haran Rajwar, R/o Chatradih, PO and PS Tinpahar, District Sahibganj. 2. Mahavir Rajwar @ Mahaveer Rajwar, S/o Manoj Rajwar, R/o Chatradih, PO and PS Tinpahar District Sahibganj. 3. Biren Rajwar, S/o late Sukhdeo Rajwar, R/o Chatradih, PO and PS Tinpahar, District Sahibganj. 4. Hiralal Rajwar, S/o Bhola Rajwar, R/o Chatradih, PO and PS Tinpahar, District Sahibganj 5. Dhukha Rajwar @ Dulku Rajwar, S/o Shivcharan Rajwar, R/o Chatradih, PO and PS Tinpahar, District Sahibganj. ….. Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party ----- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Amrita Kumari, APP ----- 02/29.04.2025: This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioners praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of sections 482 and 484 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the petitioners have been allegedly implicated in Tinpahar PS case no. 29 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 147,148,149,341,342, 323, 332, 353, 504, 506 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned SDJM, Rajmahal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. 3. The learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that the injuries sustained by the informant are grievous in nature. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that they were illegally fishing in Pataura Lake. The forest guard forbade them then these petitioners assaulted him. The allegation is against all the named accused persons and also against several unknown persons. The injuries sustained by the informant are grievous in nature. 5. Considering the aforesaid allegations against the petitioners and the fact that the petitioners had assaulted a government servant and the injuries are 2025:JHHC:12868 grievous in nature, I do not find this case fit for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J. ) KNR/