2025:JHHC:19628 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2996 of 2025 ---- 1. Rajni Kumari 2. Sanjana Kumari @ Tako Both daughters of Late Ranjit Mahato; 3. Ajay Mahato @ Alok @ Ajay Kumar Mahato 4. Bittu Mahato @ Bittu Kumar Mahato Both son of Late Ranjit Mahato, All Resident of Station Road, Kumardhubi, P.O. and P.S. Chirkunda, District Dhanbad. … … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J ---- For the Petitioners : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Nishant Roy, Advocate For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P. Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Advocate ---- 04/ 18.07.2025 This anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Chirkunda P.S. Case No. 114 of 2025, for offences under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 2. It is alleged that on 6th April 2025, informant Kavita Devi’s brother, Kundan Prasad Rawani, left home saying he was going to Kumardhubi to distribute Prasad. 10 years ago, their family lived in the Kumardhubi Station slum, where Kundan had a dispute with Ranjeet Mahato. Later, Ranjeet was murdered, and Kundan was jailed serving about 5 years. During his time in jail, Ranjeet’s wife, Munni Devi, often threatened Kavita, saying Kundan would be killed once he is released. On 6th April 2025, Kundan called Kavita and let her speak to Rahul Goswami and Kalu Sardar, who were associated with Munni Devi’s family. During the call, both denied taking money from Munni to kill Kundan. After sometime, Kavita received news that Kundan had been attacked and seriously injured. He was first taken to Kumardhubi Hospital, then transferred to S.N.M.M.C.H., Dhanbad, where he died during treatment. Kavita alleged that Munni Devi along with the petitioners and others, killed her brother using sharp weapons. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are completely innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He contended that the petitioners have been made accused in this case solely on 2025:JHHC:19628 -: 2 :- suspicion. He further argued that no report/complaint was made ever by the informant either to the local police or before the learned court with respect to the threat extended to her. The claim of a threat appears to be deliberately made up. He further submitted that during the investigation, no concrete evidence has been found to prove the petitioners’ involvement. 4. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail. He further submitted that there are statement of witnesses and confessional statement of co-accused from which it is clear that petitioners stabbed the deceased leading to severe injury and death. 5. I have gone through the available records including the Case Diary. I find that the allegation is serious in nature. Admittedly, there is an element of grudge. At paragraph 30, 31 of the Case Diary, co-accused Rahul Kumar Goswami and Harprit Singh Saluja @ Kalu Sardar in their confessional statement have stated about the manner of assault. Postmortem report also corroborates the injuries inflicted on the person of deceased. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. This case needs custodial interrogation also. Accordingly, prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected. 7. This anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03