[2025:JHHC:13293] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.3391 of 2025 ------ 1. Sonalal Hembram, aged about 69 years, Son of Late Pahalwan Hembram, Resident of Village- Majhladih Suyapara P.O. & P.S.- Fatehpur, District- Jamtara, Jharkhand 2. Santri Hansda, aged about 63 years, Wife of Sonalal Hembram, Resident of Village- Majhladih, Suyapara P.O. & P.S.- Fatehpur, District- Jamtara, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Mahto, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 02-05-2025 Heard the parties. The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Fatehpur P.S. Case No.18 of 2024 (S.T. Case No.107 of 2024) registered under Section 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, have committed the murder of their daughter-in-law namely Punam Murmu. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is further submitted that there is no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence and only on the basis of suspicion, the petitioners have been implicated in this case. It is next submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 19.06.2024. Hence it is submitted that the petitioners be released on bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the direct allegation against the petitioners of committing the murder of their daughter-in-law namely Punam Murmu and such allegations has been corroborated by the witnesses whose statement has been recorded, during the investigation, by the investigating officer of this case, there is every chance of the petitioners absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioners ought not be released on bail at this stage. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners as well as their chance of absconding and tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioners be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above- named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/