2025:JHHC:16696 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 7547 of 2024 ----- Sonu Kumar Mahto @ Sonu Mahto @ Sonu Kumar, S/o Lakshman Mahto, R/o Murrambari, Murramkala, P.O. & P.s.- Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh. .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, AddI. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Navin Kr. Jaiswal, Advocate …...... 04/ 24.06.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant. 2. This is an application filed by the petitioner praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending his arrest for offences under Sections 109, 117, 126(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 103 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 3. The allegation against this petitioner among others is that they along with Pradeep Kumar Mahto had assaulted the husband of the informant, who later on died during treatment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the statement of the eye witnesses and another evidences, it is clear that it is Pradeep Kumar Mahto who has assaulted the deceased with spade and spade was recovered from the confessional statement of Pradeep Kumar Mahto, but so far as this petitioner and other are concerned, save and accept their presence there is nothing against them. 5. The learned APP and learned counsel for the informant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner and others were present there and they were instigating Pradeep Kumar Mahto and on the instigation of this petitioner, Pradeep Kumar Mahto has committed the offence. Further he stated that petitioner and other obstructed the deceased from fleeing as they had surrounded him. 6. Considering the materials on record and specifically the statement of the witness in case diary, which clearly suggest that this petitioner and others were also there and they were instigating and the confined the deceased at the time of assault, I find that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.215 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh, stands rejected. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./