IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 21 of 2025 ----- Samsul Ansari @ Shamshul Ansari, S/o Late Sakur Ali @ Late Md. Sakur Mian @ Late Sakoor Mian, R/o Village-Nimadih, P.O-Ghorthamba, P.S.-Rajdhanwar, Dist.-Giridih, Jharkhand … …. Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand … …. Opp. Party ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. B.M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate Ms. Nutan Kumari Sharma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha (2), Advocate ----- Oral Order 02 / Dated : 10.01.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner named above has been made accused in connection with Nawal Sahi P.S. Case No. 06 of 2024 (G.R. Case No. 236 of 2024, S.T. No. 60 of 2024) for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III at Koderma. Earlier the prayer for bail of this petitioner was rejected by this Court on merit vide order dated 09.08.2024 passed in B.A. No. 5951 of 2024. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during trial, in the testimony of PW1, has stated about the complicity of one Asgar Ansari @ Garo Da and Dwarika Turi who were allegedly at the place of occurrence when the deceased was killed. Asgar Ansari @ Garo Da has already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner is on better footing than that of Asgar Ansari @ Garo Da as he was not at the place of occurrence, and the charge is that crime was committed at his instance, but neither the cognizance has been taken under Section 120B of IPC against the petitioner nor the charge under this Section has been framed. Learned counsel for the State, assisted by learned counsel for the Informant, have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in the very certified copy of the deposition of PW1, which has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, a plain reading will reveal that although this petitioner was not present there, the offence was conducted at his behest and Asgar Ansari @ Garo Da said that after the incidence is completed, he had to inform about it to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the constructive presence of the petitioner will be deemed to have been there as he was in telephonic contact with the other co-accused and Section 34 of IPC will apply. It is further submitted that out of twenty witnesses, twelve have been examined and the case is at its penultimate stage. Petitioner does not appear to be present at the place of occurrence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Court below. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satendra