2025:JHHC:12613 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5332 of 2024 ------ Vishnu Tudu, aged about 33 years, son of Mangal Tudu, resident of Road No. 5, Gudrubase, Near Lal Building, Sankosai, Mango P.O. & P.S.-Ulidih, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sourav Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu, A.P.P. ----- 03/ 28.04.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023; has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for offences under Sections 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of Arms Act, in connection with Mango P.S. Case No. 215 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1588 of 2023, pending in the Court of learned Judge in charge cum Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamshedpur 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner transpired on the basis of the confessional statement of the Tony Singh who is now dead. He further submits that arms and ammunition were recovered from the possession of Tony Singh and not from the petitioner. 4. From the FIR and the records, I find that Tony Singh and others unknown came to the house of the informant and tried to commit murder of her husband. So, an FIR was registered against Tony Singh and others unknown. During investigation, 2025:JHHC:12613 2 Tony Singh was arrested and he disclosed his involvement and also the involvement of others including the petitioner. After Tony Singh was granted bail, he was murdered. 5. Considering the nature of the case, I am of the opinion that there needs to be proper investigation against the petitioner of this case. From the impugned order, I find that the case is still pending for investigation so far as this petitioner is concerned. Thus, it is necessary to take statement of the petitioner and they must cooperate in investigation of this case. Thus, this is not the case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Considering the nature and the fact of the case this Anticipatory Bail Application stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Rashmi/-