Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:4179) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 832 of 2026 ---- 1. Yugal Yadav @ Yugal Prasad Yadav, aged about 48 years, S/o late Jodhi Yadav 2. Shankar Yadav, aged about 37 years, S/o late Itwari Yadav 3. Prakash Yadav @ Prakash Kumar, aged about 32 years, S/o late Itwari Yadav 4. Suresh Yadav, aged about 35 years, S/o late Itwari Yadav 5. Baijnath Yadav, aged about 40 years, S/o late Banshi Yadav 6. Prabhu Yadav, aged about 55 years, S/o late Pachu Yadav 7. Santosh Yadav, aged about 33 years, S/o Basudev Yadav 8. Pankaj Yadav @ Pankaj Prasad Yadav, aged about 18 years, S/o Yugal Yadav. All resident of village- Ghorbandha, P.O. & P.S.- Chalkusa, District- Hazaribagh. .... Petitioners -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opp. Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu, A.P.P. For the Informant :- Mr. Ujjwal Jaipuriar, Advocate ---- 02/13.02.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Chalkusa P.S. Case No.37 of 2025 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 329(3), 352, 324(6), 126(2), 118(2), 109(1), 115(2), 74, 76, 303(2), 351(3) of B.N.S., pending in the Court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Hazaribagh. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.3 Prakash Yadav @ Prakash Kumar has already been arrested. 4. In view of that, the prayer of anticipatory bail for petitioner No.3 Prakash Yadav @ Prakash Kumar has become infructuous. He is not pressing the anticipatory bail application of petitioner No.3. -2- 5. In view of such submission, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner No.3 Prakash Yadav @ Prakash Kumar is dismissed as not pressed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is a case and counter case between the parties and the altercation took place due to the land dispute and both the sides have lodged the case and injuries has also been received by both the sides. He also submits that the alleged occurrence is said to be dated 24.06.2025 whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged on 01.07.2025. He also submits that the petitioners are having no criminal antecedent as disclosed in paragraph No.8 of the petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel for the informant have jointly opposed the prayer and submit that the allegations are there of assault and injuries has also been received by one Sona Yadav. On this ground, anticipatory bail of the petitioners may be rejected. 8. Looking into the contents of the FIR, it transpires that altercation took place due to land dispute. The petitioner’s side was erecting the boundary wall on the part of the portion of the land. There is a case and counter case and both the sides have received the injuries and the alleged occurrence is of 24.06.2025 while the F.I.R. has been lodged on 01.07.2025. 9. In that view of the matter, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and 4 to 8 are directed to surrender before the learned Court within two weeks -3- and the learned Court shall release the petitioners on such terms and conditions or the sureties as the learned Court may deem fit and proper. 10. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 13.02.2026 Jay/