2025:JHHC:16835 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 7698 of 2024 1. Kalu Das, S/o Gangadhar Das 2. Dhiren Das, S/o Kalu Das @ Kali Das 3. Suchand Das, S/o Kalu Das 4. Bhadari Das, S/o Kalu Das All R/o Village Mahal, PO: Mahal, PS: Chandankiyari, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. ….. Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Ajit Das, S/o late Motilal Das, R/o Jorberia, PO and PS Para, District Purulia, West Bengal. ….. Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Baibhaw Gaahlaut, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh,APP For the OP No.2 : Mrs. Bandana Singh, Advocate; Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate ----- 05/24.06.2025: This is an application filed by the petitioners praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of sections 482 and 484 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the petitioners have been allegedly implicated in connection with Chandankiyari (Amlabad OP) PS Case No. 133 of 2018, corresponding to GR Case No. 555 of 2022, for the offences punishable under sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bokaro. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned counsel for the State. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during investigation these petitioners who happen to be in-laws of the deceased were not charge- sheeted. The husband was only charge-sheeted who faced the trial and was sentenced for life imprisonment. After three years, the court took cognizance against these petitioners under section 302 IPC and issued summons to them. 4. The learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submitted that these petitioners have also actively participated in commission of murder of the daughter of the informant. Thus, the court has rightly issued summons to them. [as the police, for the reasons best known, has exonerated the petitioners]. 5. After going through the FIR I find that admittedly initially the petitioners 2025:JHHC:16835 were not charge-sheeted. The Court after three years took cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners. There is no scope of investigation, far less custodial interrogation. In this type of situation, the only material which has to be considered is that the petitioners should face the trial and cooperate with the same and also whether there is any chance of tampering with the evidence. 6. There is nothing in the record which suggests that the petitioners will tamper with the evidence and will not cooperate with the trial. 7. Thus, I direct the petitioners to appear before the court below and file their respective bail-bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bokaro in connection with Chandankiyari (Amlabad OP) PS Case No. 133 of 2018, corresponding to GR Case No. 555 of 2022, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall appear before the trial court as and when required and will cooperate with the trial. Further unnecessary adjournment will not be granted on the request of these petitioners. If the trial court feels that the petitioners are tampering with the evidence or not cooperating with the trial, an appropriate order can be passed by the trial court including cancellation of their bail-bonds. 8. The present anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J. ) KNR/