( 2026:JHHC:20428 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 3119 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3119 of 2026 Rajiv Ranjan, aged about 33 years, son of Shobhi Prasad Yadav, resident of Village- Chungalkhar, P.O. Bhandaro, P.S. Hirodih, Bhandaro, District- Giridih, Jharkhand, PIN-825412 … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P. ----- 03/10.07.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Hirodih P.S. Case No.91 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the BNS, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the death has occurred due to accident. He then submits that the petitioner is the owner of the truck by which the accident took place and in view of that, the prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the allegations are there that the petitioner has intentionally dashed the deceased, who died due to the said accident. She further submits that it has come in the case diary that the location of the petitioner, at the time of accident, was nearby the place of occurrence. She then submits that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. On these grounds, she submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. ( 2026:JHHC:20428 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 3119 of 2026 5. The allegation is there against the petitioner of intentionally dashing the deceased and pursuant to that he has died. In the case diary, it has come that from the CDR of the petitioner, his location was found nearby the place of occurrence. The witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The petitioner is the owner of the said truck. In the attending 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. 6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 10th July, 2026 Ajay/