IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1028 of 2025 ------ 1. Suresh Sharma @ Suresh Mistry, aged about 72, son of late Nand Kishor Mistry 2. Parmila Devi, aged about 62 years, wife of Suresh Sharma @ Suresh Mistry 3. Uma Sharma @ Uma Kant Sharma, aged about 40 years 4. Jitendra Sharma, aged about 35 years 5. Ranjeet Sharma, aged about 28 years 6. Geeta Devi, aged about 31 years, wife of Uma Sharma @ Uma Kant Sharma 7. Meera Devi, aged about 53 years, wife of Wakil Sharma 8. Rupesh Sharma, aged about 21 years, son of Wakil Sharma Petitioner No.3 to 5 are sons of Suresh Sharma @ Suresh Mistry All are resident of Village-Dhodhri, P.O.-Ramla, P.S.- Godda (M), Dist.-Godda … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate For the State : Mr. Praful Jojo, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 14.02.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Godda (M) P.S. Case No.173 of 2024 registered under sections 126(2)/127(2)/115(2)/109/303(2)/118(1)/352/351(2)/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. 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 informant and his brother. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and the injury sustained by the informant is simple in nature and the injury sustained by Raghunandan Sah is on the right forearm which though is of grievous in nature but forearm is not the vital part of the body. It is next submitted that for the selfsame occurrence from the side of the petitioners, the petitioner no.2 instituted Godda (M) P.S. Case No. 174 of 2024. It is also submitted that there was free fight between the parties and the petitioners had no intention to kill anybody. 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 or any of his 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. 5,000/- 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 C.J.M., Godda, in connection with Godda (M) P.S. Case No.173 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 or any of his 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-