2025:JHHC:21590 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3734 of 2025 ---- Ajay @ Khiru Yadav, S/o Bhuneshwar Yadav, R/o Village Jagsimar, P.O.- Jagsimar, P.S.-Bhelwaghati, District-Giridih. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner: Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, Advocate For the State: Ms. Satish Prasad, A.P.P. ---- 04/ 31.07.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. 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 Bhelwaghati P.S. Case No. 29 of 2024, registered for offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Giridih. 3. As per the First Information Report, it has been alleged that the petitioner used to regularly talk to the daughter of the informant over phone call for which the informant made complain to the father of the petitioner. On 16.12.2024, the informant was out in his field and as there was delay in providing food, he was on his way to home and when he was near the house of Bhuneshwar Yadav, Sunita Devi told him that his daughter is lying dead and accused persons Ajay @ Khiru Yadav, Shankar Yadav, Khokha Yadav, Gondo Yadav, Sachin Yadav and Bhuneshwar Yadav have killed her by tying rope on her neck. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submits that the CDR of mobile number shows that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence at the alleged time. Learned counsel argues that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the petitioner. Learned counsel contends that the informant had pressurized the deceased to stop talking to the petitioner due to which she committed suicide. 5. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. He contends that the allegation against the petitioner is serious. The evidences and statement of 2025:JHHC:21590 -: 2 :- the witnesses show that the petitioner used to talk with the deceased and the body of the deceased was found in the petitioner’s house. Learned A.P.P. further contends that the post mortem report shows cause of death to be asphyxia due to hanging. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record, I find that the allegation against the petitioner is of committing murder of the informant’s daughter. The statement of the witnesses and the CDR of mobile number corroborates the case of the prosecution. Considering the above facts, and also the fact that the investigation is still going on wherein the presence of petitioner is necessary for proper investigation of this case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. 7. This anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03