2025:JHHC:37233 --1-- A.B.A. No. 5895 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5895 of 2025 ---- Kailash Swarnkar, aged about 44 years, son of Late Janki Swarnkar, R/o Madhu Karpur, PO – Chandipur, PS -Kasmar, District – Bokaro, Jharkhand .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Lily Sahay, Advocate For the Informant :- Mr. Sumeet Anand, Advocate :- Mr. Manish Kr. Paswan, Advocate ---- 03/11.12.2025 Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the Informant. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Kasmar P.S. Case No.39 of 2025 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 126, 115(2), 109 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat. 3. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there are case and counter case and there were free fight between the parties. He further submits that first case was lodged by the petitioner’s side being Kasmar P.S. Case No.38 of 2025 wherein the present case has been lodged lateron 2025:JHHC:37233 --2-- A.B.A. No. 5895 of 2025 being Kasmar P.S. Case No.39 of 2025. He then submits that the petitioner’s side has also received the injury. He next submits that the petitioner is having the right of defence and occurrence took place due to land dispute. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner may kindly be granted anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State and Informant jointly opposed the prayer and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of hitting on head of the deceased namely Bhuneshwar Mahto, who has died lateron in the course of treatment due to that injury. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State further submits that there are eye witnesses and they have been examined in paragraph Nos.21 and 24 of the case diary. 6. Looking into the contents of the FIR it transpires that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of blow on the head of the deceased and due to that injury, the deceased has died and the eye witnesses have supported the case in paragraph Nos.21 and 24 of the case diary. 7. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 11.12.2025 Sangam/