2025:JHHC:13827 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3708 of 2024 ------ Ayush Kumar @ Ayush Tiwari, son of Ravindra Kumar, aged about 28 years, r/o Ghunghari Tand, Mali Bagicha, PO+PS- Gaya, Dist Gaya, Bihar … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. ----- Order No. 08/ 30.04.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for offences registered under Sections 302/120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act in connection with Nirsa (Kalubathan) PS Case No. 27 of 2023 pending in the Court of JM 1st Class, Dhanbad. 3. As per the prosecution case the informant received a phone call from a staff of his father (deceased, Ashok Kumar Gope) who informed him to talk to Vijay Singh. When he called Vijay Singh he informed that his father is shot dead. When he reached at the spot, near Krishna Dham Mandir, he found his father dead. He named four persons in the FIR namely, Bharat Muru Godhaniya, Ambik Kumar Mandal, Rishi Yadav, and Mangal Singh. He also said that the accused Bharat Muru Godhaniya is a business partner of his father and five to six months back from the date of incident he gave threat to his father. He also alleged that Ambik Kumar Mandal is the main conspirator in the murder. Based on the aforesaid, this case was registered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and due to local politics he is 2025:JHHC:13827 2 being framed in this case. He claims parity as one accused Ritesh Kumar has been granted anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 1122 of 2024 in connection with the same case. 5. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that this is a case of conspiracy and there is involvement of this petitioner though he is not named this case needs thorough investigation for which anticipatory bail should not be granted to this petitioner. 6. After hearing the parties and after going through the FIR, I find that the petitioner is not named in the FIR but from the case dairy, I find that Bharat Muru Godhaniya, business partner of the deceased was not working properly. Father of the informant entered into some agreement with this petitioner and others. The brother of the informant also stated that there was frequent dispute between this petitioner and others with the deceased. Thus it is apparent that there was some dispute with the deceased and this petitioner and others. The cause of death is due to injury on vital part of the body and there is bullet injury also. Further one of the co-accused Suraj Kumar Singh confessed that Shivam Kumar Singh shot the deceased and this petitioner and others were also involved in the occurrence which is evident from paragraph no. 22 of the case-diary. This is a case based on conspiracy. 7. Considering the material which has surfaced during investigation till date, it would not be proper to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner as this case needs thorough investigation and if necessary custodial interrogation also. 8. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/Cp-3