2025:JHHC:13710 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.6000 of 2024 ------ 1. Chhotan Kumar Mahto @ Chhotan Mahto, son of Jagdev Mahto, resident of village Budhakhap, PO and PS Kujju, District Ramgarh 2. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Mahto, son of Sukar Mahto, resident of village Budhakhap, PO and PS Kujju, District Ramgarh 3. Suresh Mahto, son of Dhucha Mahto, resident of village Budhakhap, PO and PS Kujju, District Ramgarh … … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the OP : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, A.P.P. Mr. Ashutosh Anand No.2, Advocate ----- 08/07.05.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 88 of 2023, for offences under Section 302 / 201 I.P.C pending before the Court of learned A.C.J.M. Ramgarh. 3. It has been alleged by the informant that on 18.04.2023 at about 11 A.M., the accused persons had forcibly taken his son to village Budhakhap, tied him with electric pole for 4-5 hours and assaulted him with lathi, rod and danda. It has been alleged that the villagers assembled and raised objection and later the informant brought his son home and gave him medical treatment. It has been further alleged that on 20.04.2023, when the son went for nature’s call at about 3 in the night, he did not come back home till late hour. On search, the informant found the son hanging in a well with electric pole with his both legs tied with rope. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioners contended that the whole case was made out on false, fabricated and tainted 2025:JHHC:13710 2 allegations to drag the petitioners. The distance between the houses of the petitioner and the accused is about 3-4 kilometers and hence, it is not practically possible to commit the alleged offence. The petitioners had no concern with regard to the alleged occurrence and there are no evidences against the petitioners. There were no eye witnesses and it is only the family members of the deceased who are alleging the offence. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents. Similarly situated co-accused is already out on bail by order date 09.04.2024 in B.A. No. 263 of 2024. 5. Learned A.P.P. representing the State and learned counsel representing the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail application. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the allegations against the accused as in the F.I.R. are specific and direct. In course of the investigation, it has been found true that the petitioners were involved in the said offence. The case of the petitioners is in no way similar footing or better footing to that of the co-accused who has been granted bail. The postmortem report of the body of the deceased shows lacerated wound on both hands, multiple bruises on chest and back, and ligature mark is present on neck. The cause of death is opined to be due to Asphyxia by hanging. There are sufficient evidences and materials on record to establish the involvement of petitioners in the commission of the offences. 6. These petitioners had taken the deceased forcibly along with them. He was taken infront of the house of Hemlal Mahto where he was tied and mercilessly assaulted, Thereafter he returned and after two days his body was found hanging from a electric post. The fact that this petitioner had taken the deceased along with them forcibly has to be ascertained which needs appearance of the petitioners before the investigating officer for proper investigation. The witness in his statement recorded in paragraph no. 11 of the case-diary also stated that the deceased was being assaulted and when he went to save him these petitioners also entered into a scuffle with him. Involvement of the 2025:JHHC:13710 3 petitioners is also evident from the statement of the eye witness in paragraph no.10. The assault by these petitioners is also supported by the other witnesses. Though he died after two days but the proper reasons needs to be unearthed during investigation. Thus there is a necessity of custodial interrogation of the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid fact, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to these petitioners. 7. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant/Tanuj.