2025:JHHC:19669 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3847 of 2025 ------ Nanda Paswan, aged about 46 years, son of Pachchu Ram, Resident of Ward No.-6, Village- Tandwa, P.O- Tandwa, P.S.- Tandwa, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Sushma Aind, APP ----- 04/ 18.07.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Ramna P.S. Case No.117/2021, for offences under Sections 302, 506/34 of I.P.C. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Nagar Untari, Garhwa, Jharkhand. 3. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 4. There is direct allegation in F.I.R against this petitioner. This is not only a case of custodial investigation but also this is a case of custodial trial as the petitioner has tampered with the evidence which led to filing of Annexure-2 by the informant party which is a petition filed before the J.M., Garhwa whereby the informant party has backtracked from the acquisition against the petitioner. 5. This is high time when these things should stop. 6. The main reason for the witness to turn hostile is that they are not accorded appropriate protection by the State, particularly in cases where the accused is tried for heinous offences or where the accused is influential person or in a dominating position. They influence the witness in such a way that the witness even avoids to come to Court or refrain from depositing the truth. This situation prevails because of the reason that the State has not 2025:JHHC:19669 2 undertaken any protective measure. The latest significant development in the witness protection is the introduction of the Witness Protection Scheme 2018, which was endorsed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Mahender Chawla & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2019) 14 SCC 615 and the same is now further re-enforced by the B.N.S.S., 2023, which provides legal recognition and mandates witness protection measures even extending to the family members and establishing clear procedure for implementation. Further, I see that in the State of Jharkhand, the witness protection was not implemented in its true later and spirit. This case is a clear example where the State has not provided necessary protection which forced the victim to compromise the case. The Annexure-2 of this petition is the clear example of that. 6. Considering the aforesaid fact, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, at this stage, the same is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Sandeep. Cp-3