IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4374 of 2024 ------ 1. Indralal Pandit, aged about 76 years, s/o late Jagarnath Pandit 2. Tulia Devi, aged about 72 years, w/o Indralal Pandit 3. Umesh Pandit, aged about 32 years, s/o Indralal Pandit 4. Bandana Devi, aged about 31 years, w/o Umesh Pandit All are residents of Village-Jhanjhar, P.O.-Pipra, P.S.- Ramgarh, Dist.-Dumka … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Tej Narayan Pandit, s/o Bansilal Pandit, resident of Village-Tapsi, P.O.+P.S.-Jama, Dist.-Dumka … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.06 Dated- 04.03.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.34 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The 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 committed the murder of Sushma Devi. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and the petitioners are the in-laws of the deceased but they were living separately from the deceased and her husband and were also having separate mess and residence. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of being in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons committed murder of Sushma Devi. It is next submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case and for recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the murder of the deceased. 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 custodial interrogation of the petitioners during the investigation of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-