( 2026:JHHC:4911 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 6436 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6436 of 2025 1. xxx 2. xxx … Petitioners -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naveen Kumar Gaunjhu, A.P.P. ----- 04/19.02.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Chandwara P.S. Case No.47 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 64(2), 108 of the BNS, 2023 and Section 6 of POCSO Act, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Koderma. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is the father and petitioner no.2 is the uncle of the deceased. He further submits that the petitioners are not named in the FIR, however, their names have surfaced during the investigation. He then submits that the father of the deceased is the informant of the case and later on the father and uncle have been made accused on suspicion alleging they have instigated the victim/deceased to commit suicide. He next submits that the petitioners have never tortured the victim after occurrence. He also submits that the father used to work as a mason and uncle used to work as hywa driver in the mines in Hazaribagh. According to him on the date of suicide, both the petitioners were not present at home and they were on their working site. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioners are innocent and in view of that, the prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be allowed. ( 2026:JHHC:4911 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 6436 of 2025 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that petitioner no.1 was not allowing the others to take the victim to the hospital and there is allegation against petitioner no.2 of assault, which has also come in the case diary and in view of that, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner may kindly be rejected. 5. The case is arising out of suicide made by the daughter of petitioner no.1. The victim was in relationship with Chhotelal Pandey and when it transpired to the family members, she was scolded. Lakhan Saw’s statement has been recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, which is part of the case diary and he has stated that petitioner no.2 has brutally assaulted the deceased. Another witness, namely, Mahesh Saw has also stated that petitioner no.2 has assaulted the deceased and he has also stated that petitioner no.1 had prevented to take the deceased to the hospital and even he started altercation with the villagers. Prima facie, the instigation of taking such step by the deceased is also there against these petitioners. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and, as such, their prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. 6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. 7. However, if the petitioners move before the learned Court by way of filing regular bail petition, that will be decided in accordance with law without being prejudiced to this order. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 19th February, 2026 Ajay/