2026:JHHC:27344 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4386 of 2026 ------ 1. Prince Kumar @ Prince, aged about 21 years, son of Subodh Kumar 2. Jeet Kumar, aged about 17 years, son of Subodh Kumar Represented through his natural guardian (father) Subodh Kumar, son of Ras Bihari Singh, resident of Dhurwa, Sector 2 Market, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi Jharkhand Both resident of Dhurwa, Sector 2 Market, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners : Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Advocate ------ 03/11.09.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 62 of 2026, registered for the offence under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 303(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352 and 109, of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and the alleged occurrence is said to be dated 01.04.2026 wherein injury report of Paras Hospital is dated 17.04.2026. He submits that in view of injury report, no case is made out against the petitioners as alleged occurrence is said to be dated 01.04.2026 and the injury report is dated 17.04.2026 wherein age of the injury is said to be one hour only. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State and the informant jointly oppose the prayer and submit that there is direct allegation against the petitioners of assault and Summy Kumar Gond has received grievous injury and he was referred to specialized hospital namely Curesta Hospital and he 2026:JHHC:27344 was treated there and operated thrice. On these grounds, he submits that prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners may kindly be rejected. 5. On perusal of the FIR, it transpires that there is direct allegation against the petitioners of assault and at page 27 of the case diary, the medical report of the Curesta Hospital is there wherein it has been stated that the informant was assaulted and cut injury over frontal region of head, bruise over eyes, ant. injury over left temporal region, abrasion over left shoulder region and finding is there of multiple hemorrhage, contusion noted at both frontal and right temporal region and that report is of 01.04.2026. The witnesses have also supported the case, in the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners, is hereby, rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 11.09.2026 Anit Uploaded 14.09.2026