2026:JHHC:4973 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No.954 of 2026 1. Mahabir Yadav, aged about 65 years, S/O Late Bhuneshwar Yadav 2. Naresh Yadav, aged about 60 years, S/O Late Bhuneshwar Yadav 3. Santosh Yadav, aged about 34 years, S/O Late Arjun Yadav 4. Sanjay Yadav, aged about 42 years, S/O Mahabir Yadav All are resident of village-Lichari, P.O.-Jori, P.S. Bashishthnagar, District - Chatra …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioners : Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate ------ 2/19.02.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and informant. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1 has already been arrested, in view of that, she is not pressing the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner No.1. 3. As such, the prayer of anticipatory bail of petitioner No.1 Mahabir Yadav is rejected as not pressed. 4. She then submits that now the anticipatory bail is surviving only for the petitioner Nos.2 to 4. 5. The surviving petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with the Complaint case No. 516/2025, which is subsequently converted into Bashishthnagar P.S. Case No. 88/2025, registered for the offense under Section 316(2) & 318(4) of BNS 2023, pending in the court of learned CJM, Chatra. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in para-2 of the complaint, it is stated that Bandhu Mahto has two sons 2026:JHHC:4973 2 namely Bhubneshwar Mahto and Buta Mahto and in para 5 of his complaint, he has stated that the sale deed No. 891 is in the joint name of Buta Mahto and Bhuneshwar Mahto contrary to that he is showing one Vanshavali, which shows that there are three sons of Bandhu Mahto and the property is jointly in the name of three sons. She also submits that false allegations of taking the amount of compensation is made by all the cousins and on these backgrounds, the complaint case has been filed, which has been converted into FIR by the order of the learned court. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State and the informant have jointly opposed the prayer and submits that by way of showing wrong genealogy, the part of the compensation amount of the complainant has also been taken by these petitioners and in view of that, the anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 8. Considering that the said compensation amount has been paid to the petitioners by none other than the land acquisition officer, there is dispute with regard to genealogy and that can be subject of trial, both the sides are having the relationship of uncle, brother and cousin brother respectively in that view of the matter, the petitioner No.2 to 4, above named are directed to surrender before the learned Court within two weeks and the learned Court shall release the petitioners on such terms and condition and sureties, the learned Court may deem fit and proper. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 19.02.2026 R.Kumar