( 2026:JHHC:25574 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5661 of 2026 1.Mohammad Ijrael @ Mohammad Ijrail 2. Mohammad Mehtab, Both are sons of Mohammad Samsuddin … … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate : Mr. Suman Kumar Ghosh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. P.D. Agarwal, APP --- 07/24.08.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody since 25.02.2026 in connection with Chandrapura P.S. Case No. 20 of 2026 for the offences registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109, 74, 333, 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are general and omnibus allegation in the FIR, though the petitioners are named. He has further submitted that informant and his wife said to have suffered injury on their head but the injury has been found to be simple in nature and another victim that is son of the informant had suffered grievous injury on his arms but the same is not on the vital part of the body. Charge sheet has already been submitted in this case. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the petitioner no. 1 has two criminal antecedent and it has come during investigation in paragraph 20 that petitioner no. 1 was involved in alluring one girl from another community for which informant of the case had helped that community and the petitioner no. 1 after grant of bail had come and attacked the informant and his family members. With respect to petitioner no. 2, he has no criminal antecedent. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that ( 2026:JHHC:25574 ) 2 petitioner no. 1 has criminal antecedent and one of the victim has also suffered grievous injury and two have suffered simple injury on the vital part of the body and there appears to be some dispute, as stated above, between the petitioner no. 1 and informant’s family, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner no. 1 on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner no. 1 namely Mohammad Ijrael @ Mohammad Ijrail is rejected. 6. So far as the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, he has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been submitted, the petitioner no. 2 namely Mohammad Mehtab is directed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, in connection with Chandrapura P.S. Case No. 20 of 2026, on the following conditions: (i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner. (ii) The other bailor should be his close relative. (iii) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of his single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court. (v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned court below. 7. Let this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e- mail. 8. The instant bail application is partly allowed with the aforesaid conditions. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 24.08.2026 Uploaded on 25.08.2026 Binit/