A.B.A./5389/2026 of CHUNU MAHALI Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 28 September 2026

1. Chunu Mahali, aged about 56 years, Son of Rabi Mahali, Resident of Lodhanbani, P.O. & P.S. –Benasholi, District – East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

2. Bablu Mahato, aged about 41 years, Son of Nilkanth Mahato, Resident of Lodhanbani, P.O. & P.S. –Benasholi, District –East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

3. Manamath Mahato, aged about 36 years, Son of Harischandra Mahato, Resident of Lugahara, P.O. & P.S. – Banasoli, District –East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

… Petitioners

Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

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

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Anupam Tiwari, Advocate

: Mr. Arun Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the State

: Mr. Saket Kumar, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 28.09.2026

Heard the parties.

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Barsole P.S. Case No.17 of 2026 registered under sections 221/132/324/115(2)/190/191(2)/351(2)/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were the members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of the assembly used criminal force and assaulted the public servant employees of the Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and vandalized the Electric Sub-Station by damaging the Air-cooler, chairs and tables and government records. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that the petitioner no.1 apart from this case is also involved in two other cases, the petitioner no.2, apart from this case is also involved in another case as mentioned in para-3 of the supplementary affidavit and the petitioner no.3 is not named in the F.I.R. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that keeping in view the direct allegation against the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 as well as their criminal antecedents, there is every chance of the petitioners absconding and tampering if released on bail and since the petitioner no.3 is not named in the F.I.R. nor he could bring on any material in the record to show any apprehension of his being arrested in connection with any non-bailable offence, therefore the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner no.3 is not maintainable. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, keeping in view the direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 as well as their criminal antecedent as also the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case and also that the fact that there is no material in the record to suggest that there is any apprehension of the petitioner no.3 being arrested in connection with any non-bailable offence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

28.09.2026

Sonu/