( 2025:JHHC:11488 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3004 of 2025 ------ Mantu Yadav @ Mantu Prasad Yadav, aged about 42 years, son of Suresh Mahto, resident of Village-Menjhtar, P.O. & P.S.-Pathrol, Sub Division-Madhupur, Dist.-Deoghar … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate ------ Order No.02 Dated- 16.04.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of bail in connection with Karon P.S. Case No.02 of 2025 registered under sections 103(1)/238/61(2) of the B.N.S., 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner files the supplementary affidavit. Keep the same in the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed murder of Babita Devi. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of surmises and presumption as missed calls were coming in the mobile phone of the deceased which the deceased left while going to the house of the petitioner on being invited by his wife. It is then submitted that there is absolutely no allegation of any motive for the petitioner to commit the murder of the deceased and there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. It is also submitted that about a decade back, the petitioner was involved in a case vide Karon P.S. Case No. 14 of 2015 but after investigation, police did not find the allegation against the petitioner to be true and did not send up the petitioner for trial. It is also submitted that charge sheet has already been submitted in this case. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 08.01.2025 as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 11 of the bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the informant or any of his family members in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the abovenamed petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M., Madhupur, in connection with Karon P.S. Case No.02 of 2025 with the condition that the petitioner will co-operate with the trial of the case and will furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case with further condition that he will not annoy or disturb the informant or any of his family members in any manner during the trial of the case. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu-Gunjan/