2026:JHHC:5778 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 346 of 2026 Santosh Thakur @ Santosh Kumar, aged about 31 years, son of Surendra Thakur, resident of Village- Amjora, P.O. & P.S. Meharma, District- Godda (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, Advocate --- 02/26.02.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.11.2025 in connection with Mahagama P.S. Case No. 127 of 2025, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 109/303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 3/4 of Prevention of Daain (Witch) Craft Practices Act, 2001 said to have been pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is named in the First Information Report (F.I.R), but there is no overt act assigned to the petitioner. He has submitted that the main assailant has been granted bail by co-ordinate bench of this Court in B.A. No. 10868 of 2025. 4. Learned counsel also submits that the other similarly situated persons as that of the petitioner against whom there was no overt act have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in A.B.A. No. 5486 of 2025, but the petitioner was declined bail only because of the fact that the petitioner has a criminal antecedent. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is a criminal 2026:JHHC:5778 2 antecedent of petitioner for alleged offence under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 117(2), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as other case is concerned, as per his information final form has been submitted but no such statement has been made in the bail application. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts that the main assailant has already been granted bail by the co-ordinate bench of this Court and the case is otherwise similarly situated with respect to those who have been granted anticipatory bail by another co-ordinate bench of this Court, the present petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda in connection with Mahagama P.S. case No. 127 of 2025 on the, following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not disturb the informant and his family members. (ii) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner. (iii) The other bailor should be his close relative. (iv) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of his single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner. (v) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court. (vi) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned court below. 8. The instant bail application is allowed with the aforesaid and conditions. 2026:JHHC:5778 3 9. Let a copy of this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 26.02.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-26.02.2026