IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1094 of 2025 ------ 1. Sumit Kumar Pandey, aged about 20 years, son of Kamlesh Pandey, Resident of Sector 3/E, Hanuman Mandir Shiv Mandir, Bokaro, P.O. and P.S. –Bokaro, District –Bokaro, State –Jharkhand. 2. Kamlesh Pandey, aged about 49 years, son of Late Ragunandan Pandey, Resident of Sector 3/E, Hanuman Mandir Shiv Mandir, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S. – Bokaro, District –Bokaro, State –Jharkhand. 3. Amit Kumar Pandey @ Amit Pandey, aged about 19 years, son of Kamlesh Pandey, Resident of Sector 3/E, Hanuman Mandir Shiv Mandir, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S. – Bokaro, District –Bokaro, State –Jharkhand. … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Nishant Kr. Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 18.02.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with B.S. City P.S. Case No.208 of 2024 registered under sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352 and 351(2) read with 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. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and for the selfsame occurrence, from the side of the petitioners, the petitioner no.2 lodged B.S. City P.S. Case No. 209 of 2024. It is next submitted that there was a free fight between the parties and the dispute between the parties is regarding election as a priest of a temple. 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 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 Spl. 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 Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bokaro, in connection with B.S. City P.S. Case No.208 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 number and a copy of their Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that they will not change their mobile number during the pendency of the case with further condition that that they will not annoy or disturb the informant or 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-