2026:JHHC:12746 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- A.B.A. No. 1966 of 2026 ---- 1.Rajesh Kumar Saw @ Rajesh Saw, aged about 39 years son of Baleshwar Saw 2.Vakil Saw @ Wakil Saw, aged about 33 years son of Baleshwar Saw 3.Kanhai Thakur @ Kanhay Thakur,aged about 38 years, son of Jagdish Thakur 4.Nakul Saw, aged about 48 years, son of Foudari Saw 5.Sajjan Kumar @ Sanjan Saw @ Sajan Kumar @ Sajan Kumar Saw, aged about 28 years son of Santosh Saw 6.Ajay Ram, aged about 34 years, son of Basdev Ram 7.Kauleshwar Saw @ Kouleshwar Saw, aged about 25 years son of Bhuneshwar Saw 8.Sukhdeo Thakur @ Sukhdev Thakur, aged about 66 years son of Jagdish Thakur 9.Umesh Saw, aged about 42 years son of Badu Saw 10.Kanhaiya Kumar Saw @ Kanhaiya Saw, aged about 31 years son of Bhuneshwar Saw 11.Bhuneshwar Saw, aged about 71 years son of Bideshi Saw 12.Mahendra Saw aged about 41 years son of Sukar Saw 13.Akal Lohra Mali @ Akal Karmali, aged about 65 years son of Kallu Karmali, Allresidents of Village Jordag, PO Chattibariatu, PS Keredari, District Hazaribag, Jharkhand 14.Lukendra Kumar Bouncer @ Lukdnera Kumar @ Lokendra Kumar aged about 25 years, son of Ramautar, resident of Village Nipaniya, PO and PS Nipaniya District Jalaun State Uttar Pradesh 15.Rinkesh Kumar Dubey @ Rinkesh Dubey, aged about 26 years son of Laxman Dubey, resident of Village Baledevari, PO Pandu, PS Keredari, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand .... Petitioners -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- 2026:JHHC:12746 2 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Prabir Kr Chatterjee, Advocate ---- 2/30.04.2026 Heard learned counsels for petitioners and for State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Keredari PS Case No.136 of 2025, for offence registered under section 190, 191(3), 126(1), 115(2), 109, 329(3), 303(2), 351(2), 352 of BNS, 2023, pending in court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hazaribagh. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and false allegation is made of demolishing the wall of chimney and entering into the mines and taking away the coal. He submits in view of that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that allegations are there of forcefully taking away the coal and the petitioner nos.2, 4, 14 and 15 are having criminal antecedents and in view of that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. Looking to the contents of the FIR it transpires that allegations are made that the persons who were supporters of Yogendra Saw, the former Minister, demolishing the wall of chimney and entered into the mines and taking away the coal forcefully saying that it was the order of Mantrijee and it is also alleged that 2026:JHHC:12746 3 the mob started inflicting lathi blows on the operators of Tipper vehicles and Excavator vehicles and even created a situation of chaos at the place of occurrence and all the incidence has been captured in the CCTV camera and further the petitioner nos.2, 4, 14 and 15 are having criminal antecedent as aforesaid, and in the attending facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. As such prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is, hereby, rejected and hence, this anticipatory bail application being A.B.A. No.1966 of 2026 is, hereby, dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 30.04.2026 SI/