( 2026:JHHC:18962 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 2167 of 2026 1. Manoj Kumar Mahto @ Manoj Kumar, aged about 43 years, son of Jethu Mahto 2. Sujit Kumar Mahto, aged about 19 years, son of Manoj Kumar Mahto, both residents of village -Surjudih, Tola-Suyadih, P.O. and P.S. Kasmar, District- Boakro ………….Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Victim/Informant ………….Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners :Mr. Randhir Kr. vishwakarma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, A.P.P 02/ 30.06.2026: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Kasmar P.S. Case 5 of 2026, registered under sections 64/75/76 of BNS, 2023, pending in the Court of learned J.M. Ist Class, Bermo at Tenughat. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and the fact is that petitioner no.1 paid certain amount to the informant for that dispute arose and in view of that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He next submits that the independent witnesses in paras 5, 6 and 7 of the case have not supported the version of F.I.R that video of the victim has been made viral. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioners may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that in para 2 of the case diary the statement of the victim has been recorded in which she has stated she has seen the petitioner no.1 fleeing away from the house and she has identified the petitioner no.1. He next submits that in para 42 of the case diary petitioner no.2 is said to be son of petitioner no.1 and has appeared before the police and has given his statement. 5. On perusal of complaint which has been converted into F.I.R pursuant to order of the learned Court, it transpires that allegations are there against the petitioner no.1 of recording video and establishing physical ( 2026:JHHC:18962 ) relationship with the victim that has been supported by the victim in para 2 of the case diary. In view of that I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner no.1. Accordingly, the prayer of anticipatory bail on behalf of petitioner no.1 namely, Manoj Kumar Mahto @ Manoj Kumar, is hereby rejected. 5. So far prayer of bail on behalf of petitioner no.2 is concerned, he is son of the petitioner no.1 aged about 19 years and he has appeared before the police and has given his version. The independent witnesses in paras 5, 6 and 7 of the case diary has stated that they have not seen the video of the victim. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner no.2. Accordingly, the petitioner no. 2 is namely, Sujit Kumar Mahto is directed to surrender before the learned court within three weeks from today and in the event of his surrender / arrest, the petitioner no. 2 shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned J.M. Ist Class, Bermo at Tenughat, in connection with Kasmar P.S. Case 5 of 2026, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of B.N.S.S, 2023. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dt. 30.06.2026 satyarthi-