2026:JHHC:17541 --1-- A.B.A. No. 1614 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1614 of 2026 ---- 1. Rohit Yadav, aged about 29 years, son of Bisheshwar Yadav 2. Mukesh Yadav @ Matra Yadav, aged about 22 years, son of Lobin Yadav 3. Sajan Yadav, aged about 26 years, son of Dev Narayan Yadav 4. Sanjay Kumar Yadav @ Sanjay Yadav, aged about 27 years, son of Nageshwar Yadav 5. Wakil Yadav, aged about 47 years, son of Jamedar Mahto 6. Dilip Yadav, aged about 31 years, son of Jitendra Yadav, All are residents of village – Thari (GAngwara), PO – Choti Ranbhiyar, PS – Hansdiha, District – Dumka, Jharkhand .... Petitioners -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, Advocate ---- 06/17.06.2026 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 Hansdiha P.S. Case No.81 of 2023 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dumka. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioners have not assaulted. He further submits that the 2026:JHHC:17541 --2-- A.B.A. No. 1614 of 2026 allegation of murder so far these petitioners are concerned is not made out and in view of that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that there is direct allegation of assault against the petitioners and pursuant to that the deceased has died. He further submits that in paragraph No.7 of the supplementary case diary No.2 and paragraph No.15 of supplementary case diary No.3, the witnesses have supported the case and they saw the accused persons assaulting the motorcycle driver, who was the deceased, with lathi and danda and the result of which he has died. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. Considering that in paragraph No.7 of the supplementary case diary No.2 and paragraph No.15 of supplementary case diary No.3 the witnesses have supported the prosecution case and they are said to be eye witness of the incident. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners are hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 17.06.2026 Sangam/