2025:JHHC:16623 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Α.Β.Α. Νο. 7467 of 2024 1.Anil Kumar Rao @ Anil Rao, S/o late Bhawani Rav, R/o Piprasol, PO and PS Chitra, District Deoghar. 2. Pappu Kumar Rao @ Pappu Rao, S/o Anil Kumar Rao, R/o Piprasol, PO and PS Chitra, District Deoghar 3. Kundan Kumar Rao @ Kundan Rao, S/o Anil Kumar Rao, R/o Piprasol, PO and PS Chitra, District Deoghar 4. Bittu Kumar Rao @ Bittu Rao, S/o Anil Kumar Rao, R/o Piprasol, PO and PS Chitra, District Deoghar. ....Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Mohan Rao, S/o late Shakti Prasad Rao, R/o village Govindpur, Rao Tola, PO and PS Chitra, District Deoghar. …..OP(s) CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, APP For the OP No.2 : Mr. Arpit Sinha, Advocate ------- 06/23.06.2025: 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 Complaint Case No. 20 of 2015, for the offences punishable under sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned counsel for the State. 3. The learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. 4. Initially, a complaint petition was filed under sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter the complaint was sent under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR. The police investigated the case and filed a report exonerating the petitioners showing it is a mistake of fact. Thereafter, protest petition was filed by the complainant which was also dismissed after inquiry. Thereafter, Cr. Revision was filed by the complainant where the order was set- aside and the matter was remanded back resulting in taking of cognizance under 2025:JHHC:16623 sections 302/201/34 of the IPC. 5. The allegation is that since there was love affair between daughter of the petitioner no.1 and the deceased which was not accepted by the petitioners hence the deceased was murdered. 5. As per postmortem report the death is due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. There is no injury except ligature mark. 6. The fact remains that the cognizance has already been taken in this case, though after investigation these petitioners were exonerated. The protest petition was also dismissed by the trial court, but, in the revision, matter was remanded and cognizance was taken. Ultimately there cannot be any investigation in this case. The only procedure which has to be adopted is the procedure which is necessary for trial. Thus, I am inclined to release the petitioners on anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the petitioners, above named, are directed to surrender before the court below within three weeks from today and in the event of their surrender/arrest the learned court below is directed to enlarge them on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur, in connection with Complaint Case No. 20 of 2015, subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be close relative of the petitioners and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his/her name or in the name of his/her ancestors in which he/she is having share and to that effect, he/she has to file an affidavit before the learned trial court indicating his/her share in the property further subject to undertaking that they will cooperate in the trial and will not unnecessary linger the same. (ANANDA SEN, J.) KNR/