( 2025:JHHC:30906 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 4459 of 2025 1. Mahendra Mahto aged about 46 years, son of Bhairo Mahto 2. Binod Mahto @ Binod Kumar Mahto, aged about 31 years, son of Mahendra Mahto, Both are residents of village Achaljamu, P.O. Achaljamu, P.S. Bishnugarh, District-Hazaribag ...... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners :Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ravi, Advocate 06/ 07.10.2025: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Bishnugarh P.S. Case No. 45 of 2025 registered under sections 103(1), 61(2) of the B.N.S, 2023, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hazaribag. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the deceased was in relationship with Kuldip Mahto who is son of the petitioner no.1. He further submits that the family members of the girl were not ready to marry with Kuldip Mahto and in view of that they planned and killed the deceased and to buttress this argument, he refers to paras 2 and 3 of the case diary. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioners may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that in paras 2 and 3 of the case diary it has not come that family members of the girl have killed her. 5. Learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer and submits that the girl was killed in the house of the petitioners and call has ( 2025:JHHC:30906 ) been made by the petitioner no.1 to the family members of the deceased to take the body of the deceased and they have been threatened not to inform the police that has come in the F.I.R. On these grounds, he submits that the anticipatory bail of the petitioners may kindly be rejected. 6. It has come in the case diary that death has occurred due to strangulation and the petitioners have called upon the family members of the deceased to take the girl saying that she has come to the house of the petitioners. Further in front of the house of the petitioners, the dead body of the girl was found where from the family members of the deceased have taken the dead body of the girl. 7. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners so far as paras 2 and 3 of the case diary are concerned, that appears to be misconceived one, as looking into the said paras it has not come that family members of the deceased have tried to kill the girl due to relationship with Kuldip Mahto. 8. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Dt.07.10.2025 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-