2025:JHHC:19968 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3069 of 2025 ---- Shadab Hussain @Shadab Siddiqui @Sadab Siddiqui, S/o Ali Raja, R/o Village Pahari Mohalla, Near Urdu School, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamau. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhay Kumar Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State: Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P. ---- 04/ 22.07.2025 This anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 94 of 2024, registered for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palamau. 2. As per the First Information Report, it has been alleged that informant’s son was married to Jarina Praveen in the year 2008. Her daughter-in-law had illicit relations with the petitioner and when her son (deceased) raised objections, her daughter-in-law and her family assaulted him. The petitioner also threatened the informant’s son. The informant has further alleged that her son disclosed that his wife and his in-laws would kill him any time. On 17.05.2024, the informant was informed over phone that her son had been murdered. Informant believes that her son has been killed by his wife in connivance with her family members and her lover. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not at all concerned with the family of the deceased. He submits that since the wife of the deceased was working under this petitioner, this petitioner has been made an accused. He further submitted that the death was caused by hanging, which is evident from the postmortem report which suggests that the deceased had committed suicide as he was suffering from some mental agony. 4. Learned counsel representing the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. He submitted that the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and there is direct allegation against the petitioner. The post mortem report of the deceased 2025:JHHC:19968 -: 2 :- shows three antemortem injuries and cause of death to be asphyxia due to hanging and injury and antemortem injuries causing shock and hemorrhage. 5. I have gone through the available records including the Case Diary. I find that there is an allegation that the wife was having relationship with this petitioner. The postmortem report suggests that the death is homicidal. Though there is a ligature mark over the neck, there are several injuries including fracture of right forehead bone (frontal bone) among others. The doctor has opined the cause of death to be asphyxia due to antemortem hanging and injuries causing shock and haemmorhage. Paragraph 3 and paragraph 5 are the statements of the witnesses, namely, Javed Ali and Tanuja Praveen, recorded in course of investigation. They stated that the wife of the deceased always used to give threats through the petitioner to her husband. It has also come in the case diary that the petitioner is evading investigation. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and since this is a case where investigation is required including custodial interrogation, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected. 7. This anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03