2025:JHHC:19021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3688 of 2025 ----- 1.Amit Kumar Gupta, S/o Shiv Kumar Gupta, R/o Shakuntala Niwas, Near Petrol Pump Ram Nagar PO Kadma, P.S. Katkamsandi, Dist- Hazaribagh 2.Abhishek Anand, S/o Sunder Prasad R/o Uppar Bazar, Dharmu, P.O. Ichak, P.S. Ichak, Dist- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand 3.Ravi Kumar, S/o Ramanand Singh, R/o Vill- Itahari, P.O. Itahari P.S. Naya Ramnagar, Dist- Munger, Bihar 4.Sanjit Deo @ Sanjit Kumar Das, S/o Ramchandra Deo, R/o Punai Hazaribagh, P.O and P.S. Daru, Dist- Hazaribagh .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Geeta Devi, W/o Late Dhaneshwar Mehta, R/o Near Crown Public School, Madhukam, Road No.5, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeongar, Dist- Ranchi … Opp. Party(s). …… CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, AddI. P.P. …...... 04/ 14.07.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The present anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest for the offences registered under Sections 341, 342, 323, 302/34 of IPC and cognizance has been taken under Sections 323, 302/34 of IPC. 3. The learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 4. Case arises out of a complaint. 5. Admittedly, after cognizance has been taken and summons were issued to this petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the anticipatory bail application. When the complaint is filed and cognizance is taken there is no scope of investigation, far or less custodial interrogation. 6. Further in this case, I find that because of death, Magisterial inquiry was conducted and it was found that petitioner died due to heart deceased (Mayocardical infarction) and there was no foul play suspected. Further, a U.D. case was registered and the postmortem report also does not suggest any physical assault. Petitioners are the Official of Excise Department, who had taken the accused-deceased in custody as there was several cases against these petitioners. The inquest report also does not suggest any physical assault. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts, I feel that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands allowed. 8. The petitioners, above named, are directed to appear before the learned Court below within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on their appearance, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of JMFC, Ranchi, in connection with Complaint Case No. 9186 of 2021 subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be a close relative of the petitioners and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his name or in the name of his ancestors in which he is having share and to that effect, he has to file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating his share in the property. 9. The petitioners should cooperate and join investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer once in 15 days. 10. Trial Court is directed to frame charge in this case preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Further, undertaken should be given by these petitioners that they will cooperate with the trial and will not take any unnecessary adjournment. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./