2025:JHHC:16745 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2812 of 2025 Feku Nayak, son of late Shivnath Nayak, resident of village Laxman Nagar, P.O and P.S and District- Gumla, Jharkhand ..... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, A.P.P. …..... 04/24.06.2025: This anticipatory bail application under Section(s) 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for offences registered under Section(s) 103(1)/3(5) of the BNS in connection with Bishunpur P.S. Case No. 27/2024, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gumla. Heard the parties at length and had gone through the documents, annexed along with this application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased was in the habit of drinking and was very weak and he died as a result of excess drinking. He also submits that there is no material except suspicion against the petitioner and there is no eye witness of the occurrence. Learned A.P.P submits that though the petitioner has taken a plea that the deceased died because of excess drinking but the postmortem report says otherwise as several injuries were found on the body of the deceased and doctor opined that the cause of death is internal hemorrhage and shock leading to cardio respiratory failure caused by impact with hard and blunt object. He also submits that the petitioner is the relative and they have taken the deceased on the pretext of partition of the property and there is statement of the sister of the deceased who stated that this petitioner came with dead body and left it saying that the deceased died due to excess drinking. After hearing the parties, I find that though there is no eye witness of the said occurrence, but the petitioner had taken the deceased. The statement of witness Nilam Devi is on record as Annexure- 2 to the case diary. As per the said statement, namely Babulal Nayak, Chhatrapal Nayak, Pradeep Nayak had brought the dead body of the deceased and kept it in the house of his father. It is this petitioner and others who had taken the deceased earlier. On query, they stated that this petitioner died because of consumption of liquor. The fact that the death was not due to consumption of liquor rather because of the assault, which is evident from the postmortem record, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly this application is dismissed. Anu/-C.P.-3 (ANANDA SEN, J.)