IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.4236 of 2024 ------ 1. Ghanshyam Gope aged about 36 years, son of Nitu Yadav 2. Sarju Yadav aged about 31 years son of Nitu Yadav 3. Shiwan Yadav, aged about 41 years, Son of Late Bihari Yadav 4. Harihar Yadav, aged about 25 years, Son of Raghu Yadav 5. Ramautar Yadav @ Suraj Yadav @ Suraj Kumar Yadav, aged about 33 years, son of Arjun Yadav All Resident of village Jangi, P.O. and P.S. Simaria, District- Chatra 6. Naresh Yadav aged about 45 years Son of Dhanu Yadav, resident of village- Guruwahi, P.O. & P.S. Gidhour, District- Chatra .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shambhunath Yadav aged about 46 years son of Jivlal Yadav, resident of village- Jangi, P.O. & P.S. Simaria, District- Chatra .... .... .... Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Binod Kr. Dubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, Addl.P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Manish Yadav, Advocate ------ Order No.07 Dated- 18-02-2025 Heard the parties. 2. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.131 of 2016 instituted under Sections 364, 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have committed the murder of the son of the informant namely Mahendra Kumar Yadav after abducting him. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is further submitted that the deceased died by a motor vehicle accident as the motorcycle which he was riding dashed a tree. Drawing attention of this Court to the Final Report submitted by police in Simaria P.S. Case No.28 of 2015; which was registered upon the complaint of the informant being referred to police under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that therein the police, after investigation of the case, found the allegations against the petitioner to be false and found that rather the offences involved to be of Section 273 and 304 A of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted that the complainant himself first submitted a report to the Officer In-charge of Simariya Police Station, Chatra District mentioning therein that his son died in a motor vehicle accident and the motorcycle was also damaged but on 13.04.2015, filed Complaint Case No. 162 of 2015. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate rejected the Protest-cum-Complaint Petition but only after the said order was challenged in Criminal Revision No.54 of 2018 and the case was remanded, thereafter only the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-14 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. It is then submitted that the petitioners undertake that they will not annoy or disturb the complainant or any of his family members in any manner during the pendency of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners undertake to co-operate with the trial of the case and to furnish sufficient security including cash security. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State being assisted by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. 5. Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below within six weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrendering, they will be enlarged on bail on depositing Rs.10,000/- each as cash security and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M., Chatra in connection with Complaint Case No.131 of 2016 with the condition that they will co-operate with the trial of the case and they will not annoy or disturb the complainant or any of his family members in any manner during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/