IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.858 of 2025 ------ 1. Ramesh Mehta aged about 59 years, S/o Sahadev Mehta, R/o of village Jamua Tola Amhi, P.O. & P.S. Husainabad, Japla District: Palamau. 2. Aklesh Mehta @ Akhlesh Mehta, aged about 57 years, S/o Sahadev Mehta, R/o of Village Jamua Tola Amhi, P.O. & P.S. Husainabad, Japla District: Palamau. 3. Sudeshwar Mehta aged about 50 years, S/o Sahadev Mehta, R/o of Village Jamua Tola Amhi, P.O. & P.S. Husainabad, Japla, District: Palamau. .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Ms. Tanu Kumari, Advocate : Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 07/02/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Hussainabad P.S. Case No.212 of 2023 instituted under sections 304, 201, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that because of the rash and negligent act of the petitioners by operating an electric pump installed in a well through which electric current was flowing in the water pumped by the said pump and the petitioners did not take any steps to stop using the said defective pump and while taking bath from the water pumped out by the said pump, the husband of the informant died. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that admittedly, there is no postmortem of the dead body and there is inordinate and unexplained delay of more than 9 months in lodging the FIR. It is next submitted that the concerned motor pump was neither used nor installed by the petitioners. It is next submitted that the deceased did not die due to electric current as claimed. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-12 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. It is also submitted that the petitioners undertake that they will not annoy or disturb the informant or any of her family members in any manner during the pendency of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case and to furnish sufficient security including cash security. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below within six weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrendering, they will be enlarged on bail on depositing Rs.10,000/- each as cash security and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M.-1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Hussainabad P.S. Case No.212 of 2023 with the condition that they will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish their mobile numbers and photocopy of the Aadhar Cards with an undertaking that they will not change their mobile numbers during the pendency of the case and they will not annoy or disturb the informant or any of her family members in any manner during the pendency of the case and further conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/