( 2026:JHHC:19173 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 2360 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2360 of 2026 Pravin Kumar Ram @ Prabind Kumar Ravi @ Parvind Kumar Ravi, aged about 44 years, S/o Baleshwar Ram, R/o Pandepura Kalan, P.O. Kandaber, P.S. Kerebari, Dist.- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate For the State : Ms. Amrita Kumari, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Afaque Rashidi, Advocate Md. Azam, Advocate Ms. Aulia Begum, Advocate ----- 05/01.07.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Keredari P.S. Case No.39/2025, registered for the offence under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the BNS, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case alleging that the petitioner has murdered his own daughter. He further submits that the deceased was residing in the house of step aunt and she has taken poison there and due to that, she has died. He refers to Annexure-2, which are the medical documents and submits that the petitioner has taken the deceased to the hospital for treatment when she has consumed poison. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State and informant jointly opposed the prayer and submit that serious allegation is there against the petitioner. ( 2026:JHHC:19173 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 2360 of 2026 Learned counsel appearing for the State further submits that the cause of death is not due to consumption of poison as per the inquest report. On these grounds, they submit that the prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. In the inquest report, which has been recorded in para 2 of the case diary, it has come that several injuries have been found on the body of the deceased. The cause of death is not due to consumption of poison as per the inquest report. During the investigation, the witnesses have been stated in para 20 of the case diary that the deceased was brought to the village in dead condition by the petitioner. The elder brother of the informant has been examined in para 4 of the case diary, wherein, he has stated that he and other villagers have seen the body of the deceased when she was being carried for funeral and on seeing them, the petitioner and others have fled away leaving the body of the deceased. Even the doctor, who is said to be treated the deceased for consuming the poison, has been examined in para 51 of the case diary and the doctor has stated that he has not examined the deceased for consuming the poison. Even the prescriptions have not been issued by the doctor and he has stated that those documents are forged. 6. Regard being had to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, as such, his prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. 7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 1st July, 2026 Ajay/