[2026:JHHC:28638] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.5284 of 2026 ------ 1. Ajit Kumar Yadav @ Ajit Yadav, aged about 27 years, Son of Mahesh Yadav, 2. Kaleshwar Yadav @ Kauleshwar Yadav, aged about 40 years, Son of Rupee Yadav, Both resident of Village and P.O. – Kapka, P.S.- Barkatha, Dist- Hazaribag, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners: Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No:-02 Dated:-23-09-2026 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Barkatha P.S. Case No. 103 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 74 and Section 352 of the B.N.S., 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were the members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of the assembly attempted to murder the members of the informant party and outraged the modesty of the informant. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is all false and are general and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioners and the co-accused person namely Ranjit Yadav and Ajit Yadav are of assaulting Nandlal Mahto and by drawing attention of this Court to the injury report of the victim Nandlal Mahto, it is submitted that he has sustained only three injuries i.e.,(i) swelling and tenderness on right side cheek, (ii) Abrasion on right cheek and nose, (iii) severe pain in right shoulder and all the injuries were simple in nature. It is next submitted that there was free fight which took place between the parties and for the self-same occurrence, from the side of petitioners, Kedar Yadav has also lodged Barkatha P.S Case No. 104 of 2026 against the informant and other alleged victims of this case. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is regarding land dispute. It is further submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no.14 of the anticipatory bail application and because of the land dispute, the petitioners dragged in this case. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to furnish sufficient security including cash and also undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case and further undertakes that they will not annoy or disturb the informant or any of his family members in any manner during the pendency of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. Considering the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above-named petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of two weeks from the date of this order, the petitioners shall be released on bail on depositing cash security of Rs.5,000/- each and on furnishing bail of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M., 1st Class, Hazaribag in connection with Barkatha P.S. Case No. 103 of 2026 with the condition that the petitioners will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish their mobile numbers and a copy of their Aadhar Card in the Court below during the pendency of the case, with further condition that they will not annoy or disturb the informant or any of his family members in any manner during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 23.09.2026 Amar/