Dismissed¶11

Darbari Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Aug 2025A.B.A./4043/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected; Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; A.B.A. No.4043 of 2025 (decided 13.08.2025); Govindpur P.S. Case No.290 of 2024; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 ss.126(2), 329(4), 115(2), 76, 352, 351, 3(5); Witch Craft Act ss.3-4; direct allegation against accused; stripping of informant; parity with co-accused; A.B.A. No.1574 of 2025; case security Rs.10,000/-; Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Dhanbad; Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi; petitioner no.1 dismissed as not pressed.

What did the court decide?

None; prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no.2 rejected, and the application concerning petitioner no.1 (already apprehended) dismissed as not pressed. ¶11

Darbari Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no.2 rejected, and the application concerning petitioner no.1 (already apprehended) dismissed as not pressed.

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners apprehending arrest in Govindpur P.S. Case No.290 of 2024 (offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Witch Craft Act) are entitled to anticipatory bail. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

On reading the FIR, the Court finds a direct allegation against petitioner no.2 of stripping the informant and forcing her to eat debris.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Application dismissed as not pressed in respect of petitioner no.1, who had already been apprehended.

¶3

Key takeaways

Parity with the co-accused is not available: their anticipatory bail from the Coordinate Bench rested on there being no direct allegation against them (and on deposit of case security of Rs.10,000/-), unlike petitioner no.2.ratio¶9
The Court does not accept counsel's submission seeking grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner no.2 on the basis of the treatment accorded to the co-accused persons.ratio¶10
When bail is being considered, the Court is required to consider only the parameters for granting or rejecting bail, and no condition outside those parameters can be imposed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

A.B.A. No. 4043 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) decided 13.08.2025: Two petitioners sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in Govindpur P.S. Case No.290 of 2024 (ss. 126(2), 329(4), 115(2), 76, 352, 351, 3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; ss. 3 and 4 Witch Craft Act), pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. Petitioner no.1, already apprehended, was dismissed as not pressed. As regards petitioner no.2, the FIR discloses a direct allegation that he stripped the informant and forced her to eat debris; the plea for parity with co-accused granted anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No.1574 of 2025 (granted on deposit of Rs.10,000/- case security, with no direct allegations against them) was declined, and his prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected. Passing observation that bail consideration must remain confined to the recognised parameters of granting or rejecting bail, and no condition outside those parameters can be imposed.

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:23453 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4043 of 2025

¶3

Darbari Mahato, aged about 44 years, S/o Nand Lal Mahato, resident of Vill.- Kanchanpur, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶4

Dwarika Prasad Mahato, aged about 31 years, S/o Tribhuwan Mahato, resident of Vill.- Kanchanpur, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand … Petitioners

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. -----

¶8

07/13.08.2025 The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No.290 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 126(2), 329(4), 115(2), 76, 352, 351 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 and 4 of Witch Craft Act, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, he has already been apprehended and in view of that, he is not pressing this application so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned.

¶10

In view of the above, this application is dismissed as not pressed, so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, there are general and omnibus allegations against him. He submits that petitioner no.2 has been falsely implicated in the case. He also submits that co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in A.B.A. No.1574 of 2025 and in view of that, he may kindly be granted anticipatory bail.

¶12

-1-

¶13

A.B.A. No. 4043 of 2025

¶14

( 2025:JHHC:23453 )

¶15

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submits that heinous allegations are there against petitioner no.2 and in view of that, his prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.

¶16

The Court has gone through the contents of the FIR and finds that there is direct allegation against petitioner no.2 for stripping the informant and even she was forced to eat debris.

¶17

So far as anticipatory bail with regard to other co-accused persons are concerned, the Court finds that by way of depositing case security of Rs.10,000/-, they have been granted anticipatory bail.

¶18

It is well-known that if the bail is being considered by the Court, the Court is required to only consider the parameters of granting bail or rejecting the bail and no such condition can be put, which are not the parameters of granting regular bail or anticipatory bail.

¶19

So far as other co-accused persons are concerned to whom anticipatory bail has been granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, there is no direct allegation against them.

¶20

In view of the above, this Court is not accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner so far as granting anticipatory bail to other co-accused persons are concerned.

¶21

In that view of the matter, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no.2 is, hereby, rejected.

¶22

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶23

Ajay/

¶24

-2-

¶25

A.B.A. No. 4043 of 2025

Darbari Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darbari Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Neha Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandeshwar Ray Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chitranjan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Taqbul Ansari @ Takbul @ Takbul Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gunjan Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand