[2025:JHHC:26212] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.2026 of 2025 ------ Mahadev Mahto, aged about 71 years, S/o- Late Bhatu Mahto, R/o- Village – Tatokiyari, P.O.- Bajto, P.S.- Giridih (Muffasil), District- Giridih, State- Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Kr. Trivedi, Advocate For the State : Ms. Mohua Palit, Addl.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Priyadarshi, Advocate Mr. Anup Kr. Yadav, Advocate ------ Order No.06 Dated- 29-08-2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Giridih (M) P.S. Case No.284 of 2024 registered under Section 126 (2), 115 (2), 118, 125, 74, 303 (2), 109, 3 (5) of the B.N.S., 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, in furtherance of common intention with the co- accused persons, has committed the murder of Shibu Mahto. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that there was only one injury found in the body of the deceased, hence, the allegation that three persons assaulted the deceased in highly improbable and only because the petitioner is the father of the co-accused, hence, to harass the petitioner, he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that it is not probable that a 71 years old person will commit the murder and flee away from the place of occurrence. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 03.10.2024. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant vehemently oppose the prayer for bail and submit that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of committing the murder of Shibu Mahto by assaulting him being variously armed i.e, iron rod, axe and big stone. Hence, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as his chance of absconding and tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected at this stage. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/