2026:JHHC:5078 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.742 of 2025 …. 1. Guljar Ansari @ Mintu Ansari, aged about 27 years, son of Nasruddin Ansari, Resident of Fatahi Tola, village – Balu, P.O.- Kokdoro, P.S.- Pithoria, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) PIN 834006 2. Saddam Ansari, Aged about 30 years, Son of Jakir Hussain, Resident of Village – Balu, P.O.- Kokdoro, P.S.- Pithoria, District – Ranchi, (Jharkhand), PIN 834006 ……Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Butan Devi, Aged about- 45 years, wife of Dhaneshwar Pahan, Sidhu Sinku, Resident of Village- Heth Balu, P.O.- Kokdoro, P.S.- Pithoria, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) ……Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellants : Mr. Shahid Khan, Advocate For the State : None For the Informant : Mr. Prashant Kr. Srivastava, Advocate …… Order No.04/19th February 2026 1. Learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the Informant are present. However, none appears on behalf of the State on repeated call. 2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants who are apprehending their arrest in connection with A.B.P No.1584 of 2025 arising out of Pithoria P.S. Case No.39 of 2025 by which the prayer of anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 299, 300, 126(2), 115(2), 109, 74, 352, 351(2), 351(3) of BNS and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)of the SC/ST Act,2015 and which is pending in the Court of learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-II- cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 2026:JHHC:5078 2 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are innocent and have not committed any offence. It is submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including the appellants but no specific allegations is levelled against the appellants. It is submitted that the injury sustained by the Informant side are simple in nature and there is a case and counter case between both the sides. It is submitted that even one Rajia Khatoon has instituted Complaint Case No.13736 of 2025 against 31 persons of Informant’s side and hence they may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, none appears on behalf of the State on repeated call. Although the name of Mr. Fahad Allam has appeared in the daily cause list. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 has opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail of the appellants and submitted that the injuries sustained by the Informant are grievous in nature and due to which the Informant was admitted on causality ward in the Hospital and for which he has filed Counter Affidavit and hence the prayer of anticipatory bail of the appellants may be rejected. 7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from perusal of the records of this case, it appears that the appellants are named in the F.I.R for assaulting the son of the Informant and some other persons of Informant’s side, who had sustained injuries. 8. It also appears that the accused persons were raising religious slogans and teased the girls and women of the village. 9. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant the anticipatory bail to the appellants. 2026:JHHC:5078 3 Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants is hereby rejected. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.742 of 2025 is, hereby, dismissed. 11. The appellants are directed to surrender before the learned Court below and pray for regular bail. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated 19.02.2026 Nishant/-