2026:JHHC:4437 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No.10512 of 2025 1. Pradeep Saw, aged about 63 years, son of Late Janki Saw; 2. Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir Saw, aged about 27 years, son of Pradeep Saw; Both Resident of Village – Rebar, P.O. and P.S – Katkamsandi, District – Hazaribagh. …… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P For the Informant : Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate Mr. A. I. Guru, Advocate --------- 03/Dated: 17 th February, 2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicants, who are in custody since 10.08.2025, have approached this Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Katkamsandi P.S. Case No.175 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 115(2)/ 126(2)/ 118(1)/ 109(1)/ 333/ 352/ 79/ 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hazaribagh. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that complete set of F.I.R along with its enclosures have been annexed with the present bail application and there is no suppression on his/ her part. Innocence of the applicants has been claimed and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted that it is a land dispute and the informant-party were trying to sale out the land of the applicants and this information has also been given to the authority concerned. Further, anticipatory bail has been granted to one of the co-accused namely, Jayanti Devi by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.01.2026, passed in A.B.A. No.252 of 2026, wherein the main allegation is upon the said Jayanti Devi. The entire family members have - 1 - B.A. No.10512 of 2025 2026:JHHC:4437 been made accused in the present case. It has further been submitted that these applicants have no criminal antecedent and they are farmers. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been made. 4. On the other hand, learned P.P and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail. It has been submitted that there are injuries and injury on the head also. The injuries have been caused by the applicants in an organized manner. 5. Considering the nature of allegation and the reported injury, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicants on bail, at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the applicants is, hereby, rejected. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 17th February, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- Uploaded on 18.02.2026 - 2 - B.A. No.10512 of 2025