( 2026:JHHC:13340 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 2075 of 2026 1. Rintu Goswami @ Sanjaya Nandadev Goswami, aged about 54 years, son of Brajaballav Nandadev Goswami, resident of 149, village Shyam Sundarpur, District-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) 2. Dinesh Kumar Paul @ Dinesh Chandra Paul, aged about 54 years, son of Ganga Dhar Paul, resident of village-Chandanpur, P.O. and P.S. Shyam Sundarpur, District-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand). ...... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners :Ms. Vaishnavi Kaushik, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P. 02/ 05.05.2026: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Shyamsundarpur P.S. Case No. 27 of 2025, registered under sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 132, 3 (5) of BNS, pending in the Court of learned J.M. Ist Class, Ghatshila. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that other co- accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order and anticipatory bail of the petitioners has been rejected only on the ground that petitioners have one criminal antecedent. She next submits that petitioners are neither owner nor driver of the tractor and allegation is made that the sand was loaded on the said tractor. She further submits that only on suspicion the name of the petitioners has been inserted in the F.I.R and only allegation is made that petitioners were present at the place of excavation. On these grounds, she submits that the petitioners may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits ( 2026:JHHC:13340 ) that petitioners are having criminal antecedent. 5. Considering that only allegation is made that petitioners were present at the place of excavation. Some of the co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by the impugned order by the learned Sessions Judge however, the anticipatory bail of the petitioners has been rejected only on the ground that petitioners have one criminal antecedent. 6. Further criminal antecedent cannot be sole criteria of either rejecting or allowing anticipatory bail or regular bail. In the identical situation other co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge. 7. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the above named, petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned court within three weeks from today and in the event of their surrender / arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned J.M. Ist Class, Ghatshila, in connection with Shyamsundarpur P.S. Case No. 27 of 2025, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of B.N.S.S, 2023. Dt.05.05.2026 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-