IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A.No. 1440 of 2025 1. Govind Mahto, aged about 40 years, S/o Hemlal Mahto, R/o near Hanuman Mandir, P.O. Karma, P.S. Mandu, District-Ramgarh 2. Naresh Mahto, S/o Dhucha Mahto, aged about 42 years R/o Burakhap near Bajrang Bali Mandir, P.O. Karma, P.S. Mandu, District -Ramgarh …. … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …Opp. Party ------------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. ---------- Order No.02/ dated 04.03.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Mandu (Kujju) P.S. Case No.88 of 2023 registered under sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners committed murder of Raj Kumar and caused disappearance of the evidence of the murder. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false. It is also submitted that only because a couple of days before the commission of suicide by the victim, the petitioners and others assaulted him after he was tied to an electric pole for a considerable period of time, under the sun, on the suspicion that the petitioners might have committed the murder of the deceased, they have been implicated in this case. It is next submitted that as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxia because of hanging. It is then submitted that there is considerable period of time gap between the alleged assault made by the petitioners on the deceased at about 11:00 am of 18.04.2023 and his suicide at 03:00 am of 20.04.2023 therefore, the commission of suicide cannot be attributed to the petitioners. It is then submitted that the petitioners undertake to furnish sufficient security including cash security and also undertake to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the abovenamed petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail on depositing cash security of Rs. 10,000/- each and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M., Ramgarh, in connection with Mandu (Kujju) P.S. Case No.88 of 2023 with the condition that the petitioners will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish their mobile number and a copy of their Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that they will not change their mobile number during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J) P.K.S.