IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.4724 of 2024 ------ 1. Maksud Mian @ Md. Maksud Ansari @ Maksud Ansari, aged about 38 years, Son of Md. Ismail Ansari 2. Guddu Mian @ Md. Ainul Ansari @ Md. Ainul, aged about 33 years, Son of Yunush Mian. 3. Husain Mian @ Md. Husain Ansari, Aged about 34 years, Son of Ajij Mian. 4. Mujlim Mian @ Md. Mojjmil @ Mojjmil, aged about 43 years, son of Kasim Mian @ Kasi Mian. All the petitioners are Resident of Village-Tungun, P.O. + P.S.- Lawalong, District-Chatra. .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Sadhna Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.06 Dated- 27/02/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Lawalong P.S. Case No.47 of 2023 registered under Section 376-D, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have committed gang rape upon the prosecutrix. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the allegation of commission of rape is upon Alam Ansari @ Bhothwa Ansari. It is next submitted that the petitioners have committed the offence of outraging the modesty of the victim. It is next submitted that in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the husband of the victim has stated that being swayed away by emotions, he submitted an application in the police station against four accused persons also. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner 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 it is not necessary to constitute the offence punishable under Section 376-D which relates to gang rape; the woman is to be raped by all the persons constituting the group or acting in furtherance of common intention and if one of them commits the offence, then the rest of the persons constituting the group are said to have committed the gang rape, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is only made out against the petitioners; when there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of forcing the victim to be ravished by the co-accused Alam Ansari @ Bhothwa Ansari, hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are required during the investigation of the case in order to find out the detail particulars 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 his 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.) Abhiraj/