Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10375 (JHR)

PALTU PASWAN v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./6290/2025 · 2026-02-04

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2026:JHHC:2977 ) --1-- A.B.A. No. 6290 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6290 of 2025 ---- 1. Paltu Paswan, aged about 30 years old 2. Mithun Paswan @ Mithun Kr Paswan Both are son of Chita Paswan, Resident of Sakrugarh Gas Godown, P.O. & P.S. Borio (J), District-Sahibganj .... Petitioners -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners :- None For the State :- Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P. ---- 04/04.02.2026 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioners. Learned counsel on behalf of the State is present. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Jirwabari P.S. Case No.88 of 2025 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 352, 351(2), 109, 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj. 3. In the petition, it has been asserted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and the informant had not received any injury and the petitioners’ party have also instituted a case regarding the same incident, being Jirwabari P.S. Case No. 89 of 2025. On this ground, it has been prayed in the petition to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the allegation of firing is there against both the petitioners and further petitioners are having criminal antecedents. 5. In the F.I.R. itself, it has been alleged that one Saltu Paswan ( 2026:JHHC:2977 ) --2-- A.B.A. No. 6290 of 2025 has fired on the informant. The petitioners are also named in the F.I.R. In para 53 of the case diary, it has been found that there are four cases against the Petitioner No. 1 and seven cases against the Petitioner No. 2 of serious nature. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 04.02.2026 Nandini/ Uploaded: 07.02.2026