Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:14815) --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2637 of 2026 ---- Gurupado Sardar @ Tiru, aged about 32 years, son of Dilip Sardar, resident of near Basic School, Bada Gamhariya Bagan Pada, P.O.- Chhota Gamharia, P.S.- Gamharia, District- Seraikella- Kharsawan .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Anjani Nandan, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P. ---- 02/14.05.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No.355 of 2025, for offence registered under sections 334(1) /303(2) /109/ 324(4)/ 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, pending in court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has nothing to do with stealing 50 kgs. of copper wire from Tata Steel Gamhari. He submits that allegation of firing is also made that is not against the petitioner. He submits that only on the basis of suspicion, the name of the petitioner has been taken by the informant, who is the Security guard of said company. On these grounds, he also submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned for the State opposes the prayer and submits that this is not a simple case of stealing, firing was also made and the entire incident has been captured in the CCTV footage, which is mentioned in the case diary and that has come in the order of learned Sessions Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:14815) --2-- Judge. 5. Considering that the name of the petitioner may have come on the suspicion but there is allegation of firing also. It is not a simple case of stealing 50 kgs. of copper wire, that has been forcefully stolen from Tata Steel Company. Apart from that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent of murder that has come in paragraph- 35 of the case diary and that has been observed by learned Sessions Judge. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 14.05.2026 Jay/