Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:8533) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1053 of 2026 ---- 1. Teklal Mahto @ Teklal Kumar, son of Madan Mahto, aged about 32 years, resident of village- Arahara, P.O. +P.S.- Barkagaon, District- Hazaribagh 2. Saroj Mahto @ Saroj Kumar Mahto, son of Madan Mahto, aged about 28 years, resident of village- Arahara, P.O. +P.S.- Barkagaon, District- Hazaribagh 3. Madan Mahto, son of late Ramlal Mahto, aged about 55 years, resident of village- Arahara, P.O. + P.S.- Barkagaon, District- Hazaribagh. .... Petitioners -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. ---- 02/25.03.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Barkagaon P.S. Case No.237 of 2025, for the alleged offences registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 132, 109(1), 351(1), 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S., pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and the allegations are made while the Officers of N.T.P.C after making the measurement of the land were coming, the attack has been made by the petitioners upon them. He submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners may kindly be allowed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that all these petitioners are named accused and they -2- have all of a sudden attacked upon the Officers of the N.T.P.C. In view, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners may kindly be rejected. 5. All these petitioners are named accused, the allegations are made that they appeared all of sudden and attacked upon the Officers of the N.T.P.C. with deadly weapon with an intention to kill them at the spot and they demanded ransom from them and the witnesses in paragraphs-5, 6 and 7 have supported the prosecution case and that has come in the order of learned Sessions Judge. 6. In view of that, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, hence, the prayers for anticipatory bail of the petitioners are hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 25.03.2026 Jay/