By 
The Supreme Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused of biting off a neighbour’s ear during a violent clash in Ranchi. A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran dismissed his plea recently, leaving in place the Jharkhand High Court’s earlier refusal of anticipatory bail.
The Case:
The petitioner is Rajiv Ranjan Kumar. He is accused in a case registered at Argora Police Station in Ranchi in 2024, which arose from a clash between neighbours on the night of Janmashtami. He is charged under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). One of them is Section 118, which deals with voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
Proceedings in the Jharkhand High Court:
The petitioner first approached the Jharkhand High Court, which rejected his anticipatory bail application by an order dated February 17, 2026 (A.B.A. No. 863 of 2026). His counsel argued that there was a case and a counter case between the parties, that the quarrel was rooted in a land dispute, and that each side had suffered injuries. He also said the case did not fall under Section 109 of the BNS.
The State and the informant opposed the plea. They said there was a direct allegation that the petitioner assaulted the victim, and that the injury was grievous. In its order dated February 17, 2026, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed:
“The injured received several cut injuries on head and face and the report is there that the injury is grievous in nature.”
The Court concluded:
“I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, as such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.”
What Happened in the Supreme Court:
In the Supreme Court, the petitioner’s lawyer described the incident as a long dispute between neighbours that got out of hand one night. He said:
“It’s a long-simmering dispute between neighbours. It flared up on one night and cross-FIRs were registered. The opposite side managed to get anticipatory bail while I was denied the same.”
He added that it was a night of celebration and that stone pelting had taken place.
The Bench did not accept this version and focused on the injury. The Court remarked:
“Aapne pehle bandook nikali, phir uska kaan pakad liya, aur pura kaan khaa gaye aap. (You first took out a pistol, then held his ear and ate it) And you want anticipatory bail?”
The lawyer said the allegation about the firearm was false. The Bench set that issue aside and asked:
“Chalo pistol jaane dijiye. Kaan ka kya karein? (Okay, let the pistol be, what do we do about the ear?) How do we replace it?”
Cross Allegations of Injury:
The lawyer then said his client was also attacked in the same incident. According to him, the petitioner was held down by his hands and legs and bitten on the chest.
The Bench asked whether this meant there had been a brawl. The lawyer said yes, and added that the petitioner was willing to cooperate with the investigation.
Outcome
The Court did not think the claim of a mutual fight was enough to grant relief, and it dismissed the petition.
Supreme Court order dated October 14, 2026 (SLP (Crl) No. 20173/2026)
Jharkhand High Court order dated February 17, 2026 (A.B.A. No. 863 of 2026)
