( 2026:JHHC:24957 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6508 of 2026 Chhavi Prasad @ Chhabi Prasad, Son of Late Manika Chandra Sah … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Ms. Adwita Arya, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A,P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Tejaswa Mohanta, Advocate --- 06/18.08.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Ketar P.S. Case No. 17 of 2026 corresponding to G.R. No. 400 of 2026 for the offences registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109,74,76, 303(2) 351(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023 But cognizance has been taken under section 115(2),126(2),109,74,76,351(2), 3(5) of B.N.S., pending in the court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Nagar Untari, Garhwa. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 10.04.2026. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge sheet has been submitted for the alleged offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109,74,76, 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. The learned counsel has submitted that as per the injury report there is only one sharp cutting injury on the head and there is land dispute between the parties. She submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State and the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner in the FIR itself which has been lodged by the informant cum victim of the case and she has submitted that the petitioner had attacked her with the sharp cutting knife on head as well as on her shoulder. The learned counsel for the informant submits that as per the injury report, the injury is grievous in nature. The learned counsel submits that there is injury on ( 2026:JHHC:24957 ) 2 the shoulder as well as on the head. He has further referred to paragraph 39 of the case diary to submit that the son of the victim has supported the prosecution case who is the eye witness to the occurrence. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in response has submitted that the son claims to be present at the time of occurrence, but he has not suffered any injury. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the victim cum informant has made specific allegation against the petitioner to assault by sharp cutting weapon and the injury report reveals that there was injury of cut not only on the shoulder but also grievous injury on the head, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, at this stage. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 7. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after the period of six months from today. 8. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 18.08.2026 Uploaded on: 20.08.2026 Binit/