(2026:JHHC:15184) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 4111 of 2026 1. Satendra Yadav, aged about 51 years, s/o Baleshwar Yadav, 2. Mukesh Yadav @ Mukesh Kumar, aged about 23 years, s/o Satendra Yadav, 3. Kunal Yadav @ Kunal Kumar, aged about 20 years, s/o Satyendra yadav (All are residents of Azad Nagar, Chamaria Khatal, Marafari, PO & PS – Marafari, & District – Bokaro, Jharkhand. … … …Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … …Opp. Party ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Ankit Burman, Advocate : Mr. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, Addl. P.P. ------ HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ Order No:- 04, Dated:- 15th May, 2026 Heard the parties. The petitioners have moved before this Court for grant of bail in connection with Marafari P.S. Case No. 26 of 2026, registered for the offences punishable under sections 190, 191(3), 115(2), 117(2), 118(2), 331(5), 324(5) and 351(3) of the B.N.S., 2023 along with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that they were member of an unlawful assembly and being armed with deadly weapon, attacked the informant-party causing injury to him. It is next submitted that there is no firing from the side of the petitioner and in-fact it is the Rabindra Kumar from the side of the informant who made the firing. It is next submitted that the petitioner no. 2 is a home- guard constable. It is then submitted that for the self-same occurrence from the side of the petitioners, wife of petitioner no. 1, namely, Urmila Devi lodged Marafari P.S. Case No. 27 of 2026. It is also submitted that there was a free fight between the parties and the petitioners had no intention to kill anybody. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and they have no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 13 of the bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 06.03.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 14 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioners undertake to cooperate with the investigation of the case and further undertakes that they will not annoy or disturb the informant or the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the abovenamed petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, in connection with Marafari P.S. Case No. 26 of 2026, with the condition that the petitioners will cooperate with the trial of the case and will furnish their mobile number and a copy of their Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that they will not change their mobile number during the trial of the case, with further condition that they will not annoy or disturb the informant or the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated – 15.05.2026 Aditi