2025:JHHC:18866 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3073 of 2025 ------ Suleman Munda, S/o Munda Munda. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshuman Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P. ----- 03/ 10.07.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Karra P.S. Case No.63 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. No.548 of 2024, for offences under Sections 310(2) and 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Khunti. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that as per the F.I.R., there were only six persons involved in the occurrence. He submits that during investigation, five were arrested and they have been identified in the Test Identification Parade (TIP). He submits that the sixth person has surrendered. Since there is no seventh person, the petitioner cannot be made accused. He further submits that the name of this petitioner transpired from the confessional statement of Paulas Kashchyap @ Paulosh Toppno, and just because the petitioner happens to be the elder brother of one of the accused, he has been made an accused. 4. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the 2025:JHHC:18866 2 prayer for anticipatory bail. 5. After hearing the parties, I find that this is a case of road robbery. The informant party were looted. In the F.I.R., there is a reference of six person but the accused person have taken name of this petitioner also. Further, the informant had identified the arrested miscreants on T.I.P. Thus, the role of this petitioner needs to be investigated in this case during investigation by putting the petitioner in Test Identification Parade also to find out as to whether the petitioner was present there at the time of occurrence or not. Thus, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant. Cp-3