[2026:JHHC:13272] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2064 of 2026 1. Shivji Yadav @ Shibji Yadav, aged about 48years, son of Bhola Yadav, resident of Jayanti Gram, Sriram Chauki, Mahadevganj, P.O. & P.S. Jirwabari, District Sahibganj (Jharkhand). 2. Vikas Kumar Yadav @Vikash Kumar Yadav, aged about 25 years, son of Shivji Yadav, resident of Sriram chouki, Mahadevganj, P.S. & P.O.-Jirwabari, District Sahibganj (Jharkhand). 3. Siyaram Yadav @ chhotu Yadav, aged about 31 years, son of Govind Yadav, resident of Sobhanpur Dera, P.O. & P.S. Muffasil, District Sahibganj (Jharkhand) ..... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P. ------ 03/ 05.05.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Sahibganj (M) P.S. Case No. 115 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 118(2), 109(1), 132, 121(1), 121(2), 221, 303(2), 351(3) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Sahibganj. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He next submits that it has been alleged that a seized truck, on which, overloading of stone dust was there, the petitioners and others have [2026:JHHC:13272] -2- tried to take away the said truck and they were obstructed the police personnel in discharging their official duty. He further submits that the allegation of tearing of the uniform of the police personnel is also false. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioners. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioners and others of interfering with the police personnel and altercating WITH them and even they were tried to snatch the arms in the said scuffle and further they have also torn the uniform of the police personnel. She next submits that the petitioner No. 1 is having two criminal antecedents and petitioner No. 2 is having five criminal antecedents. 5. On perusal of FIR, it transpires that there is direct allegation against the petitioners and others that they have tried to snatch the arms of the police personnel and also torn their uniform and further petitioner No. 1 is having two criminal antecedents and petitioner No. 2 is having five criminal antecedents and petitioner No. 3 is said to be the accomplice of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-05.05.2026 Amitesh/-