[ 2026:JHHC:18353] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3282 of 2026 1. Md. Aslam Ansari @ Md. Aslam, aged about 39 years, son of Alimuddin: 2. Mahtab Alam, aged about 28 years, son of Md. Hamid Ansari,; 3. Ehshan Ansari, aged 34 years, son of Alimuddin Ansari; 4. Chottelal @ Jumauddin @ Jumauddin Ansari, aged about 38 years, son of Mohammad Alimuddin; All resident of Jario, P.O.-Kurum, P.S.-Rajrappa, District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand. ..... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Praful Jojo, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. ------ 03/ 23.06.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 208 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1) and 352 and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners have purchased the land through the registered sale deed and the altercation took place when the petitioners started the construction of boundary wall on the said land. He next submits that there are case and counter case between the parties. He then submits that the petitioners are having no criminal antecedent and disclosure to [ 2026:JHHC:18353] -2- that effect has been made in para-10 of the petition. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioners. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant have jointly opposed the prayer and submit that the allegations are there of making assault, pursuant to that the injury has been received by the informant. Learned counsel for the informant further submits that the petitioners are having criminal antecedents and false statement has been given in para-10 of the petition that the petitioners are having no criminal antecedents. He submits that the cases being Complaint Case Nos. 844 of 2024, 10 of 2025 and 202 of 2025 are there against these petitioners. On these grounds, they submit that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. In para-10 of petition, it has been stated that the petitioners are having no criminal antecedents, however, they are having the criminal antecedents, as mentioned hereinabove in the submission of learned counsel appearing for the informant. It appears that the petitioners have not come before this court with clean hands and this is the enough ground to reject the anticipatory bail of these petitioners. 6. As such, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, above named. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-23.06.2026 Amitesh/-