( 2025:JHHC:13612 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3546 of 2025 ------ Ayush Kumar @ Max Kumar, aged 22 years, son of Suraj Prasad Gupta @ Suryadeo Sao, resident of Village –Satgawa, P.S. & P.O. –Hariharganj, District –Palamau, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 05.05.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Hariharganj P.S. Case No.136 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons has committed the murder of the deceased –Minki Kumari. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that charge sheet has been submitted under Section 80(2) of the B.N.S., 2023. It is further submitted that a suicide note of the victim has been recovered in which she has mentioned that none is responsible for her commission of suicide. It is next submitted that the petitioner is the younger brother-in-law (Dewar) of the victim and there is no allegation of demand of dowry against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. It is submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. that whether or not, the alleged suicide note of the deceased is in handwriting of the deceased is yet to be verified as though the verification of the handwriting has been referred to the forensic laboratory but the report is yet to be received. It is next submitted that the undisputed fact remains that the deceased died by asphyxia, caused by manual strangulation which goes to show that this is not case of suicidal death rather it is a case of homicidal death and there is direct allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner was also present in the house where the deceased was strangulated on the allegation that the child in her womb was a result of her illicit relationship and it is highly unlikely that one person can strangulate another in normal circumstances; without any mark of resistance and even though charge sheet has been submitted for the offence punishable under Section 80(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 but this is a case where charges are also to be framed under Section 103 of the B.N.S., 2023 because this is an out and out case of murder but keeping in view the fact that the period within which the investigation of the case is to be concluded, otherwise the petitioner will be entitled to be released on due for default bail; charge sheet has been submitted hurriedly, as is evident from the charge sheet itself. It is next submitted that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner; there is every chance of the petitioner tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of his tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu-Gunjan/