Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 15341 (JHR)

KONGRESS MAHATHA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./2824/2026 · 2026-05-29

Rongon Mukhopadhyay

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2026:JHHC:15709 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 2824 of 2026 --- Kongress Mahatha … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ranjeet Kumar Mishra … … Opposite Parties --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate For the Opposite Party : A.P.P. --- 2/29.05.2026 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was earlier withdrawn in A.B.A. No.186 of 2025. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 182 of 2024. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature against the petitioner and it was one Parikshit Mahasha who had assaulted on the head of the informant with a Lathi. It has been submitted that charge sheet has been submitted against some of the accused persons and so far as the present petitioner is concerned, investigation is still pending. Learned counsel further adds that a title suit is already pending and in fact, the entire dispute is civil in nature and therefore, in such circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. It appears that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of assaulting with a Lathi on the legs as well as the scrotum of the informant and the injury report also suggests the correctness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. -2- It also appears from the allegations that the Pleader Commissioner was also subjected to assault by the accused persons and in fact the accused persons despite the pendency of title suit had taken the law in their own hands and had committed assault upon the informant and others. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the same is hereby rejected. This application stands rejected. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) Dated- 29th May, 2026 Abhiraj/- Uploaded on 02/06/2026