( 2026:JHHC:21594 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 2663 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2663 of 2026 1. Jakir Miyan, age about 54 years, son of Basir Miyan, R/o Thana Barkatha, VTC: Ghangri, P.O. Jhurjhuri, P.S. Barkatha, District- Hazaribag 2. Ashlam Ansari, age about 40 years, son of Yusuf Ansari, R/o Barktha, Dharhara, P.O. Jhurjhuri, P.S. Barkatha, Dist.- Hazaribagh 3. Md. Azaz, age about 34 years, son of Md. Basir, R/o Barktha, Dharhara, P.O. Jhurjhuri, P.S. Barkatha, Dist.- Hazaribagh 4. Kallu Miyan, age about 67 years, son of Megann Miyan, R/o Barktha Dharhara, P.O. Jhurjhuri, P.S. Barkatha, Dist.- Hazaribagh 5. Samshad Anshari @ Md. Samsad Ansari, age about 36 years, son of Md. Anawar, R/o Barktha Dharhara, P.O. Jhurjhuri, P.S. Barkatha, Dist. Hazaribagh … Petitioners -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioners : Ms. Prashansa, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Sahadeo Choudhary, Advocate ----- 03/22.07.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Barkatha P.S. Case No.16 of 2026, registered for the offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 352, 351(2) of the BNS, pending in the Court of the learned JMFC, Hazaribag. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. She further submits that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the petitioners. She then submits that there is case and counter case and the accused Nawab and others have also assaulted the petitioners’ side and for that, the case has also been registered by the petitioners’ side being Barkatha P.S. Case No.99 of 2025. She submits that in view of that, anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. ( 2026:JHHC:21594 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 2663 of 2026 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State and informant jointly opposed the prayer and submit that there is direct allegation of assault against the petitioners and pursuant to that assault, two grievous injuries have been received by the informant. They also submit that all the petitioners are having criminal antecedents and two of the FIRs have been annexed with the counter affidavit, filed by the informant, in which, these petitioners are accused. On these grounds, they submit that the prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. In the FIR, there is direct allegation against the petitioners of assault and pursuant to that, two grievous injuries have been received by the informant. The petitioners are also having criminal antecedents and the FIRs against these petitioners in other cases have been brought on record by filing counter affidavit on behalf of the informant. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and, as such, their prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. 6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. 7. Interim order, granted earlier by this Court, is vacated. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 22nd July, 2026 Ajay/