2025:JHHC:30833 --1-- A.B.A. No. 4894 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4894 of 2025 ---- Pawan Kumar Ray, aged about 22 years, S/o Late Anil Ray, resident of village – Ojha Jamua, PO – Sangram, PS – Jasidih, District - Deoghar .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the Informant :- Mr. Ranjan Kr. Ravidas, Advocate :- Mr. Uttam Kumar Das, Advocate ---- 03/06.10.2025 Heard learned 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 Jasidih P.S. Case No.145 of 2024 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 302, 201, 120B and 34 of Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Deoghar. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that false allegations are made against the petitioner and the allegations are made that this petitioner has taken the son of the informant and he was murdered. He further submits that only on suspicion the name of the petitioner has come and according to him the petitioner is innocent and he has not murdered the son of the informant. 2025:JHHC:30833 --2-- A.B.A. No. 4894 of 2025 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that pursuant to last order the case diary has been received in which the materials are there against the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner has taken away the son of the informant and prior to that he has also threatened to kill the son of the informant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the informant also accepts the submission of learned counsel appearing for the state and he further submits that the independent witnesses, who have been examined in paragraph Nos.3, 6, 7 and 8, have supported the prosecution case. 6. In view of the above and considering that the petitioner has taken the son of the informant from the house and thereafter the son of the informant has not returned and in paragraph Nos.3, 6, 7 and 8 independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, 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 06.10.2025 Sangam/