2026:JHHC:27413 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4591 of 2026 ------ 1. Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Saw, son of Saryu Saw, age 22 years resident of Budhbazar, near Imambara, P.O. and P.S. Argada, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand 2. Pratham Kumar, son of Rajesh Singh, age 18 years, resident of Village Sirka, Budhh Bazar, P.O. and P.S. Argada, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand 3. Tamim Hasmi Khan @ Charku Khan, son of Parwez Khan, age 20 years, resident of H. No.14, near Masjid, Budhh Bazar, P.O. and P.S. Argada, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners : Ms. Kaushiki Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. ------ 02/11.09.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 158 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 351(2), 303(2) and 109(1) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and the petitioners have not assaulted and even not snatched the amount as alleged in the FIR. On these grounds, she submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioners and the witnesses have supported the alleged assault by petitioner nos.1 and 3 and one eye witness in para 18 of the case diary has also supported the case. On these grounds, he submits that prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. On perusal of the FIR, it transpires that there is allegation of stopping the vehicle by three motorcycle riders and making assault and 2026:JHHC:27413 further snatching Rs.44,600/- and even the threatening was issued not go to the police. The witnesses in para 7, 8, 9, and 18 have stated that the petitioner nos.1 and 3 have assaulted and in para 51 of the case diary, the witnesses have supported the alleged involvement of all these petitioners and an independent witness in para 18 has 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 15.09.2026