2026:JHHC:24938 -1- A.B.A. No. 3921 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- A.B.A. No. 3921 of 2026 ---- 1.Pappu Kumar Yadav @ Pappu Yadav @ Jhandul, aged about 38 years, son of Jagdish Yadav, resident of Akash Kinari, PO and PS Katrasgarh, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand 2.Virendra Yadav @ Birendra @ Chilla Yadav, aged about 35 years, son of Arjun Yadav, resident of House No.97, near Durga Mandir, Akash Kinari Basti, Akashanali, PO and PS Katrasgarh, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand 3.Ajit Yadav @ Ajit Kumar, aged about 20 years, son of Kaleshwar Yadav 4.Ranjan Kumar Yadav @ Rana @ Ranjan Yadav, aged about 30 years son of Mohan Yadav 5.Ranjan Kumar Yadav @ Ranjhna Yadav @ Ranjan Yadav, aged about 27 years, son of Balmukund Yadav 6.Nitish Kumar Yadav @ Nitish Yadav, aged about 26 years, son of Upendra Yadav 7.Dadan Yadav @ Dandan Kumar Yadav, aged about 22 years, son of Ramjatan Yadav 8.Mithilesh Yadav @ Mithilesh Kumar Yadav, aged about 25 years, son of Ramchandar Yadav, Sl.Nos.3 to 8 are residents of Akash Kinari Basti, Akashanali, PO and PS Katrasgarh, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand .... Petitioners -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Rakesh Ranjan , Advocate ---- 2/19.08.2026 Heard learned counsels for petitioners and for State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in 2026:JHHC:24938 -2- A.B.A. No. 3921 of 2026 connection with Katras PS Case No.152 of 2026, for offence registered under section 191(2), 191(3), 190, 117(2), 118(1) and 109(1) of BNS, 2023 and Section 25(1-B), 26, 27 and 35 of Arms Act, pending in court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 3. Mr. Banerjee, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that only on the basis of some secret information, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He next submits that there was free-fight between the two groups in which firing was made and pursuant to that, two persons have received injury and, on these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioners. 4. Learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that serious allegations are there and the petitioners are named in the FIR and the two groups were fighting with each other in which firing was also made and pursuant to that, two persons have received bullet injury. He next submits that the petitioner nos.2,4,5 and 6 are also having criminal antecedent and in view of that, anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. Looking to the contents of the FIR, it transpires that serious allegations are made that there was free-fight between the two groups in which firing was made and pursuant to that, two persons have received injury and the witnesses nos.2 to 4 in the 2026:JHHC:24938 -3- A.B.A. No. 3921 of 2026 case diary have supported the case of the prosecution and further the petitioner nos.2,4,5 and 6 are also having criminal antecedent and the independent witnesses in paragraph nos.67, 68 and 69 have said that they have heard about the incident, and in the attending facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. As such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is, hereby, rejected and consequently, A.B.A. No.3921 of 2026 is, hereby, dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 19.08.2026 SI/