( 2026:JHHC:19165 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 2322 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2322 of 2026 1. Raman Kumar @ Raman Pandey, aged about 28 years, son of Vinod Pandey, resident of Kharidaha, P.O. & P.S. Bheldi, District- Saran (Chhapra), Bihar 2. Sujit Kumar @ Sujit Ray, aged about 35 years, son of Wakil Ray, resident of Takeya, P.O. & P.S. Bheldi, District- Saran (Chhapra), Bihar … Petitioners -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pramod Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P. ----- 03/01.07.2026 Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Jharia P.S. Case No.318/2025, registered for the offence under Sections 103(1), 61(1) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, pending in the Court of the learned A.C.J.M., Dhanbad. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that although the petitioners are also named in the FIR, however, the informant has not taken name of the petitioners in his re-statement in para 2 of the case diary. He further submits that only on suspicion, the informant has taken name of the petitioners. He then submits that there is nothing against these petitioners. He next submits that co-accused person has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in A.B.A. No.3379 of 2026. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioners. ( 2026:JHHC:19165 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 2322 of 2026 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioners are named in the FIR. She further submits that so far as anticipatory bail granted to the co-accused person is concerned, he was not named in the FIR. She next submits that so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, he is having one criminal antecedent and that has come in para 166 of the case diary. On these grounds, she submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. There is no doubt that the petitioners are named in the FIR, however, prima facie it appears that only on suspicion the informant has taken name of the petitioners. In para 166 of the case diary, it has come that petitioner no.2 is having criminal antecedent, however, it has also been disclosed in the case diary that the said case is arising out of the Excise Act. In para 2 of the case, re-statement of the informant has been recorded and he has stated that in the CCTV footage, he has identified Rohit Kumar Singh, Akash Gope and Kunal Kumar and the informant has not taken name of these two petitioners. The case of the said co-accused person, who has been granted anticipatory bail, is distinguishable to the present case as he was not named in the FIR. The petitioners are named in the FIR, however, in the case diary, materials are not there against these petitioners. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, the above-named petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned Court within three weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrender, they shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like ( 2026:JHHC:19165 ) -3- A.B.A. No. 2322 of 2026 amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M., Dhanbad in connection with Jharia P.S. Case No.318/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 1st July, 2026 Ajay/