( 2025:JHHC:11765 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3038 of 2025 ------ Ashok Prasad, aged about 37 years, son of late Nandan Saw @ Nandan Prasad, resident of Village-Nawatand, P.O. & P.S.- Nawadiha Bazar, Dist.-Palamu … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 21.04.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Pratappur P.S. Case No.140 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 103(1)/ 351(2)/ 351(3)/352/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act and also under Section 27 of Arms Act. The 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 Malti Devi by firing upon her. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the allegation of fire in the FIR has not been specified as to who out of the three persons including the petitioner; who came to the place of occurrence in a motorcycle, fired upon her. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is direct and specific allegation that the petitioner along with two other persons came and fired upon Malti Devi so, the petitioner is squarely responsible for the act of commission of murder of Malti Devi by firing upon her with the aid of Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It is next submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that in view of serious nature of allegation, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and also tampering with evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu-Gunjan/