2025:JHHC:19795 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3763 of 2025 ------ Munna Pandey, son of Shri Basisth Pandey, resident of village Polma Pokhar, PS Jirwabadi, PO Sahibganj, District Sahibganj, Jharkhand … … Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Rajnandini Dutta, Advocate. (through V.C.) Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P. ----- 04/ 17.07.2025 Ms. Rajnandini Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner appears through virtual mode assisted by Mr. Prabhat Kumar, learned counsel. She has no complaint regarding the quality and clarity of video and audio. 2. Heard the parties. 3. The present anticipatory bail applications under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for the offence registered under Sections 103 (1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Section 27 of Arms Act, in connection with Jirwabadi P.S. Case No. 164 of 2024 . The case is presently pending in the court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj. 4. As per the fardbayan of Ms. Talabiti Hembram, wife of the deceased, recorded at Sadar Hospital, Sahibganj, immediately after the incident, she stated that around 6:30 PM she heard a gunshot and, upon coming out, found her husband 2025:JHHC:19795 2 lying wounded in the courtyard. She saw 2–3 unknown persons fleeing from the spot but could not identify anyone at that time. It is further alleged that the petitioner earlier threatened to kill them if they do not give the land to him. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the FIR bears the thumb impression of the informant who is an educated lady and it raises a suspicion about the genuinity of the FIR. He submits that the Victim has not seen the petitioner at the place of occurrence. He further submits that the petitioner was not even present at the place of occurrence. He further submits that no recovery has been made from petitioner and there is no direct or even circumstantial evidence to suggest the involvement of this petitioner in the alleged offence. He lastly submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. 6. Learned counsel on behalf of the State submits that the informant has clearly stated in the FIR that there was some dispute regarding the land which clearly suggest that this petitioner has motive to kill the deceased. He submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. Thus, he prays that the petitioner should not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. 7. After hearing the parties and going through the materials available on record, I find that the informant has implicated the petitioner and one other in this case but from Annexure-3 of this petition which is an application before the Superintendent 2025:JHHC:19795 3 of Police, Sahibganj filed by the informant it transpires that the informant back tracked from the accusation against the petitioner and others. Thus, I feel that the accused persons have tempered with the evidence by gaining over the informant. Thus, this case needs custodial investigation as also custodial trial, if necessary. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts as well as the nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant this petitioner the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly this anticipatory bail application is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/Cp-3