2025:JHHC:13699 -: 1 :- A.B.A. No. 5204 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. NO. 5204 OF 2024 ---- 1. Narayan Mahto @ Narayan Kumar Mahto S/o Hemlal Mahto, R/o PO Karma, PS Mandu, District Ramgarh. 2. Ramesh Mahto @ Ramesh Kumar Mahto, S/o Sawanlal Mahto, R/o Budhakhap near Durga Mandap Karma, PO Karma, PS & District Ramgarh. 3. Sunil Mahto @ Sunil Kumar Mahto S/o Budhu Mahto, R/o Budhakhap Near Durga Mandap Karma, PO Karma, PS & District Ramgarh. … … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioners : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sidharth Roy, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Handana Sinha, A.P.P. ---- 6/ 07.05.2025 Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State had argued their respective cases. 2. Through this anticipatory bail application, the petitioners, apprehending their arrest, pray for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Mandu (Kuju) Police Station Case No.88 of 2023, for allegedly committing offence under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Ramgarh. 3. The prosecution case is that on 18.04.2023 at about 11 a.m. the accused persons forcibly took son of the informant to village Budhakhap and tied him with electric pole and Narayan Mahto along with others assaulted him with lathi, rod and danda. It has been alleged that son of the informant was rescued by the villagers and brought home by the informant. It has been further alleged that on 20.04.2023, when the son went for nature’s call at about 3 am in the night, he did not come back home till late hour. On search, the informant found his son hanging in a well with electric pole. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the whole case was made out of grudge and vendetta against the petitioners. There was no allegation against the petitioners in the First Information Report that they forcibly took the deceased from his house. Petitioners Nos.2 and 3 have not been named in the First Information Report. The initial assault was made by other accused. Counsel further argued that the it has not been alleged that the deceased was ever seen with the petitioners after he went missing from 2025:JHHC:13699 -: 2 :- A.B.A. No. 5204 of 2024 20.04.2023 nor any evidence had been collected during the investigation that suggested that the deceased was assaulted by these petitioners. 5. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Learned APP further submitted that the statements of the witnesses namely Jitu Devi (mother of deceased), and Sanjay Mahto and Basudeo Mahto at paragraphs 6, 7 and 13 of the case dairy had been recorded by the Investigating Officer in course of investigation. The witnesses had stated that on the date of occurrence, co-accused person namely Surendra Mahto had come to the house and abused and assaulted the deceased and took him to village- Budakhap. On reaching there, the witnesses saw the deceased tied to an electric poll and the petitioners were present there. Basudeo Mahto (witness) had also stated that petitioner- Narayan Mahto had threatened the deceased to cutt-off his hands and legs and made him lick spit from the ground. Furthermore, the postmortem report shows three injuries on the body of the deceased and cause of death is due to asphyxia casued by hanging. 6. I have gone through the case diary and the statements of the witnesses recorded in course of investigation. I find that materials have been collected in course of investigation and statements of eye witnesses to the 1st incident of offence have also been recorded, wherein there are direct allegations against the petitioners of assaulting the deceased. 7. Considering the nature of allegations and the materials surfaced in course of the investigation including the statements of the eye witnesses to the 1st incident of the offence wherein there are direct allegations against the petitioners, I do not find it to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioners in connection with Mandu (Kuju) Police Station Case No.88 of 2023, pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Ramgarh, is hereby rejected. 8. This anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03