( 2026:JHHC:18995 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 2240 of 2026 Bittu Rawani, aged about 18 years, son of Mantu Rawani, resident of Amtal, P.O. and P.S. Baliapur, District-Dhanabd ………...Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ………….Opp. Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, A.P.P (through V.C.) 03/ 30.06.2026: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State through Video Conferencing. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Baliapur P.S. Case No. 202 of 2025, registered under sections 103(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of last seen theory the petitioner has been implicated in the present case. He next submits that in the F.I.R itself it is stated that deceased used to not return the house in the evening several occasions. He further submits that on the fateful day when the deceased has not returned his family members had not taken care of him and on the next day the deceased was found dead lying near the road near Ma Radhika School. He next submits that deceased was a drunker and in para 49 of the case diary the witness has stated that there was no enmity between the petitioner and deceased. He further submits that in para 11 of the case diary it has come that the deceased was having epilepsy. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State appearing through video conferencing opposes the prayer and submits that in paras 19 and 20 of the case diary it has come that altercation took place between petitioner along with one other person and deceased on 01.09.2025 and on the next day the dead body of the deceased was found and in view of that anticipatory bail of the petitioner may kindly be rejected. 5. From perusal of F.I.R, it transpires that petitioner and other persons have taken the deceased. On the fateful day the deceased has ( 2026:JHHC:18995 ) not returned to the house. Further on 01.09.2025 altercation took place between the petitioner and deceased and on the next i.e. on 02.09.2025 the dead body of the deceased was found. Thus allegations are there against the petitioner that the petitioner quarreled with the deceased on 01.09.2025. In paras 19 and 20 of the case diary the witnesses have stated that altercation took place between the petitioner along with one other person and deceased. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case , I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer of anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dt. 30.06.2026 satyarthi-