Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 29438 (JHR)

PREMAN KUMAR PARAHIYA ALIAS PREMAN KUMAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./7665/2024 · 2025-06-24

Sri Ananda Sen

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:16735 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 7665 of 2024 1. Preman Kumar Parahiya @ Preman Kumar, S/o Jagdish Prahiya, R/o village Jahar Sarai, PO Meral and PS Manjhiaon, District Garhwa. 2. Santosh Parahiya, S/o Sukhdev Prahiya, R/o village Jahar Sarai, PO Meral and Ps Manjhiao, District Garhwa 3. Umesh Prahiya, S/o Sudesh Prahiya, R/o village Jahar Sarai PO Meral and PS Manjhiaon, District Garhwa. 4. Mala Prahiya, S/o Bali Pratima, R/o village Chatakman, PO Tamgekala and PS Ranka, District Garhwa. 5. Sanichar Parahiya, S/o Gola Baiga, R/o Village Jaharsarai, PO Meral and PS Manjhiaon, District Garhwa. .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : Mr. S. K. Srivastava, APP ----- 04/24.06.2025: 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 Manjhiaon PS Case No.49 of 2024, for the offences punishable under sections 302/201/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. 3. The learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and the deceased went for hunting along with other persons. The deceased accidently got fire arm injury and he died. 5. Admittedly, the petitioners were with the deceased. I find that the deceased died due to fire arm injury. There is application of Arms Act also as the petitioners admitted that they had gone for hunting in the forest area. The body was also found concealed. 6. Considering the nature of allegations, this is a fit case where custodial interrogation is necessary. 7. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J. ) KNR/