[2025:JHHC:11113] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A No.2299 of 2025 ------ 1. Kamdeo Saw, aged about 33 years, son of Kago Saw, Resident of Village-Devpahari, P.O. & P.S.-Deori, Dist.-Giridih, Jharkhand 2. Rubi Devi, aged about 33 years, wife of Kamdev Saw, Resident of Village-Devpahari, P.o. & P.S.-Deori, Dist.-Giridih, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Addl. P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 11-04-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Deori P.S. Case No.60 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103 and 61 of the B.N.S., 2023. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons has committed murder of Parvati Devi and assaulted her. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and are general and omnibus in nature. It is then submitted that petitioners have been implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion. Drawing attention of the Court towards para-7 of the anticipatory bail application, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have no criminal antecedent. It is then submitted that the petitioners undertake to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that keeping in view the direct allegation of serious nature, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners and the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the above named petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the above named petitioners are rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Rohit/