A.B.A./5463/2026 of MANDEEP RAM Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 29 September 2026

1. Mandeep Ram, aged about 46 years, son of Dashrath Ram,

2. Sonu Kumar, aged about 24 years, Son of Mandeep Ram,

3. Satyendra Kumar, aged about 18 years, son of Mandeep Ram, All are resident of Village Pachaur, P.O.-Balekhand, P.S.-Dandai, District-Garhwa.

.... .... …. Petitioners

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

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

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

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Sudhir Kr. Mahto, Addl.P.P

------

Order No.02 Dated- 29-09-2026

Heard the parties.

Apprehending their arrest in connection with Dandai P.S. Case No.35 of 2026 instituted under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 352, 351(3), 74, 303(2), and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 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 in furtherance of common intention with co-accused persons, outraged the modesty of the informant, committed theft of her gold ear tops, silver chain and called her a Daain. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the main allegation is against the petitioner no.1 and the allegation against the petitioner no.2 and 3 is that only they have called the informant to be a Daain. It is then submitted that the genesis of occurrence is a petty dispute regarding taking water from handpump and some exaggerations has been made to rope in the petitioner no.2 and 3 in this case, for the purpose of wreaking vengeance. It is also submitted that the injury sustained by the victim is simple in nature as has been mentioned in the order dated 21.08.2026 passed in ABP No.528 of 2026. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case and to furnish sufficient security including cash security. 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, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner no.1 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 ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner no.1 namely Mandeep Ram, the requirement of his 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 Mandeep Ram. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioner no.1 is rejected. So far as the petitioner no.2 and 3 are concerned, the allegation against them are general and omnibus in nature and also keeping in view the fact that they have no criminal antecedents, this Court is inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner no.2 and 3. Accordingly, the petitioner no.2 and 3 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 depositing Rs.5,000/- each as cash security and 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 J.M.F.C., Garhwa in connection with Dandai P.S. Case No.35 of 2026 with the condition that the petitioner no.2 and 3 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.) 29/09/2026 Abhiraj/