IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3965 of 2024 ------ D. Ravi Rao @ T. Ravi Rao @ Ravi Rao, aged about 31 years, S/o- Narayan Rao, Resident of:- Holding No. 109, B-Block, Sonari, Near Kabir Mandir, P.O.- Kagalnagar, P.S.- Sonari, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Mohan Mishra, Advocate Mr. Raj Shekhar Jha, Advocate For the State : Md. Azeemuddin, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.06 Dated-27-03-2025 I.A. No.13762 of 2024 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer for early hearing of the instant Anticipatory Bail Application. Since hearing of this Anticipatory Bail Application is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) A.B.A. No.3965 of 2024 Apprehending his arrest in connection with Sidhgora P.S. Case No.01 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.584 of 2023 instituted for the offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/341/323/324/325/307/379/506/ 342/302/120B of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was a member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of the assembly being armed with deadly weapons, committed murder of Chandra Bhushan Singh. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the confessional statement of the co-accused person including that of Chirag Mukhi. It is further submitted that there was previous enmity of the petitioner with the deceased. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of assaulting the deceased resulting in his death, hence, there is requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of assaulting the deceased resulting in his death as well as the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/