A.B.A./5519/2026 of JASHWANT MAHTO Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 1 October 2026

1. Jashwant Mahto, aged about 40 years, son of Sri Muneshwar Mahto,

2. Muneshwar Mahto, aged about 60 years, son of Late Ramkaval Mahto,

3. Chinta Devi, aged about 38 years, wife of Mangal Mahto,

4. Savitri Devi, aged about 49 years, wife of Bhawant Mahto,

5. Rina Devi, aged about 30 years, wife of Mukesh Mahto,

6. Sangita Devi, aged about 26 years, wife of Dhananjay Mahto. All are residents of Village-Selari, P.O. + P.S.-Tarhasi, Dist.- Palamau, Jharkhand.

.... .... …. Petitioners

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

.... .... .... Opposite Party

------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Kishore Kr. Mishra, Advocate

: Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, Addl.P.P.

------

Order No.02 Dated- 01/10/2026

Heard the parties.

Apprehending their arrest in connection with Tarhasi P.S. Case No.54 of 2026 instituted under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 117(2), 109, 126(2) and 352 of the B.N.S., 2023, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly attempted to commit murder of the members of the informant party. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the main allegation is against the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and the petitioner nos. 3 to 6 are females and to co-accused females have been granted privileges of anticipatory bail. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case and will not annoy or disturb the informant or his family members during the pendency of this case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner no.1 & 2 of attempting to commit murder of the informant and his family members and associates, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner no.1 & 2 is required during the investigation of the case, in order to find out the details of the case. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner no.1 & 2 ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner no.1 namely Jashwant Mahto and the Petitioner No.2 namely Muneshwar Mahto, the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner no.1 namely Jashwant Mahto and the Petitioner No.2 namely Muneshwar Mahto. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioner no.1 & 2 is rejected. So far as the petitioner no.3 to 6 are concerned, considering that there is no direct and specific allegation against them and allegations against them are general and omnibus in nature and also keeping in view that they are the females and the fact that they have no criminal antecedents, this Court is inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner no.3 to 6. Accordingly, the petitioner no.3 to 6 are directed to surrender in the Court below within two weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrendering, they will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Tarhasi P.S. Case No.54 of 2026 with the condition that the petitioner no.3 to 6 will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish their mobile numbers and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that they will not change their mobile numbers during the pendency of the case and they will not disturb or annoy the informant or his family in any manner during the pendency of the case and further conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 01/10/2026 Abhiraj/