2025:JHHC:13506 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2647 of 2025 Rahul Yadav @ Martin @ Rahul Kumar, S/o Binay Kumar Yadav, R/o Village- Kurmipara, P.O. & P.S.- Mihijam, District- Jamtara .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, Advocate For the State : Ms. Snehlika Bhagat, AddI.P.P. …...... 03/ 05.05.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This is an application filed by the petitioner praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of Sections 482 and 484 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 apprehending his arrest for the offences under Sections 103(1)/61(2) of BNS under Section 27, 25(1-b) 26/35 Arms Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. as the wife of the deceased did not lodge the F.I.R. immediately, and when father of the deceased came from Patna, thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged. Thus, the delay is unexpected. He submits that from the F.I.R. itself, it is clear that if at all there was some dispute, the dispute was between Sumit Gupta and the son of the informant, but later on the wife of the deceased stated that her husband called her and communicated that it is Sumit Gupta along with his friends taking the name of this petitioner and another, that they are chasing him to commit murder. Thereafter, the phone was disconnected and it was found that he was murdered. He further stated that phone call was not properly verified also. 4. After hearing the parties and after going through the records, I find that the informant, who is the father of the deceased was working in Patna. He was informed by the wife of the deceased about the occurrence. The next date, when he came, he took the detail of information from the wife of the deceased and thereafter lodged the case on the very next day. Thus, in my opinion, the dealy is not fatal. 5. From the F.I.R., I also find that initially threat was given by Sumit Gupta to the husband of the deceased, but later on the husband over the phone informed his wife that Sumit Gupta along with petitioner and others (specifically taking the name of this petitioner) are chasing them to commit murder and thereafter the phone was disconnected and ultimately it was found that the deceased was murdered. Thus, it is the case where custodial investigation is necessary, I find that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner in connection with Mihijam P.S. Case No.10 of 2025, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamtara, stands rejected. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S/