[2025:JHHC:10652] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3626 of 2024 ------ 1. Guddu Kumar @ Guddu Bharti @ G. K. Bharti, aged about 33 yrs. S/o- Ramashish Bharti 2. Rinki Devi @ Rinku Devi, aged about 31 yrs., W/o- Guddu Kumar Both R/o – near Coal Field School, Loharkulhi, P.O. & P.S.- Saraidhela, Dist.- Dhanbad .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.09 Dated- 07-04-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Saraidhela P.S. Case No.310 of 2023 registered under Sections 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, have committed culpable homicide of Hitesh Kumar not amounting to murder by pushing in such a manner that he fell down and sustained head injuries resulting in his death and the occurrence happened when the deceased had gone to demand the house rent from the petitioners; as the petitioners were tenants of the deceased. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the deceased died after three days of being treated in hospital. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-10 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that keeping in view the direct allegation against the petitioners of having committed the murder of Hitesh Kumar, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners as well as the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/