2026:JHHC:13197 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2001 of 2026 ------ 1. Gulab Ansari, son of Iliyas Ansari 2. Md. Faruk Ansari @ Faruk Ansari, son of Raju @ Md. Rajak Ansari Both are residents of Village Lakrakhondha, P.O. Charakmara, P.S. Sarath, District Deoghar, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners : Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. ------ 02/04.05.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Sarath P.S. Case No. 08 of 2026, registered for the offence under Sections 190, 191(2), 195(1), 126(2), 115(2), 109(2), 121(1), 125(b), 132, 262, 263(a), 351(2) and 352 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhpur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and the allegations are made that the cyber criminals have been apprehended by the police and the petitioners and others have taken away the cyber criminals from the police custody. He next submits that the petitioner no.1 is having one criminal antecedent and petitioner no.2 is having no criminal antecedent. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioners are involved in cyber-crime. 5. Looking to the contents of the FIR, it transpires that the allegations are against the petitioners that they resisted the police force in discharging their official duty and allegedly got free two apprehended co- accused persons namely Gulab Ansri and Faruk Ansari from police custody and the accused persons including the petitioners pelted stone and physically assaulted the police personnel and further petitioner no.1 is having one criminal antecedent, in the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioners, is hereby, rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Anit Uploaded 05.05.2026