2026:JHHC:29394 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9165 of 2026 1. Khiro Pandit, Aged about 55 years, Son of Late Sahdev Pandit, 2. Vakil Pandit @ Vakil Sahdeo Pandit, Aged about 51 Years, S/O Sahdev Pandit, Both are resident of Village - Ghorband, P.O.- Kumharlalo & P.S.- Pirtand, Dist – Giridih and at Present R/O Plot No. 104, A Wing Geeta Apartment, Sahakar Nagar, Jivadani Cross Road, Near Mathura Dairy, Virar, East VTC Virar, P.O Virar East, P.S.- Virar, Distt - Palghar, State - Maharashtra. … … Petitioners Versus State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, APP For the Informant : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate --- 04/30.09.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody in connection with Pirtand P.S. Case No. 03 of 2026, registered under sections 191(1), 126(1), 115(1), 118(1), 109(1), 76, 351 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Giridih. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are in custody since 11.08.2026 and the case has been registered on 03.02.2026. He submits that there is 02 days' delay in filing the First Information Report. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners had moved for anticipatory bail up till the Hon'ble Supreme Court and subsequently, they have surrendered and are in custody. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that there is land dispute between the parties and there is case and counter-case. He submits that both the parties have suffered injuries and therefore, the petitioners be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned counsels for the State and the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that there is direct allegation 2026:JHHC:29394 2 against the petitioners Khiro Pandit and Vakil Pandit to have assaulted the sister-in-law of the informant of the case on her head, which led to multiple injuries and the injuries were grievous in nature. They submit that the informant of the case is the eyewitness and also one of the injured witnesses. 6. The learned counsels for the opposite parties have further submitted that so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, he has two criminal incidents. They submit that the First Information Reports against petitioner no.1 were registered under various sections, including Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. 7. To this, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he is not aware as to under which sections, the charge sheet has been submitted in those cases. 8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioners of assaulting the sister-in-law of the informant of the case, who suffered grievous injuries on her head and also multiple injuries and further, the informant happens to be the eyewitness to the occurrence and also one of the injured witnesses, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:30.09.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:01.10.2026