2025:JHHC:11241 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1690 of 2025 ------ Chandu Kumar Jha, aged about 23 years, son of Santosh Kumar Jha, resident of E-101, Block, Near Rankani Mandir, Green Enclave, G.P. Slope, B.H. Area, Kadma, P.O. + P.S.-Kadma, District-Jamshedpur, Jharkhand …. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Rai, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.05 Dated- 04.07.2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Kadma P.S. Case No. 125 of 2022 instituted under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has filed this second anticipatory bail application after submission of charge-sheet. Initially, the FIR was registered against the petitioner for the offences under sections 302 and 34 of IPC on the basis of suspicion for commission of murder of the deceased. It is further submitted that now the charge-sheet has been submitted for the offence under section 306 of IPC without any sufficient materials showing that the petitioner has ever abated the deceased to commit suicide rather there is allegation that the deceased was under tense relationship with his own second wife and the petitioner, who happens to be brother of the second wife of the deceased, suspicion has been raised against him. Therefore, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that 2025:JHHC:11241 2 there is a direct allegation against the petitioner to abate the deceased to commit suicide and there is no fresh ground raised by the petitioner in this application to grant the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that even if the charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner under section 306 of IPC but at the time of hearing first anticipatory bail being A.B.A. No.6750 of 2023, the case diary was called for in which there was a supervision note of Dy.S.P indicating that the case is true for the offence under section 306 of IPC, therefore, the plea taken by the petitioner does not appear to be a new fresh ground to consider this second anticipatory bail application. Hence, I am not inclined to grant the anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this second anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Pappu/