IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.6053 of 2024 ------ Shisupal Kumar Sah @ Shisu Pal Kumar Sah, aged about 39 years, son of Late Bijay Kumar Sah, resident of Manikpur, Pirpaitibazar, P.O. & P.S.- Pirpaiti, District- Bhagalpur, State- Bihar. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, Addl.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No.08 Dated-27-03-2025 I.A. No.3771 of 2025 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. 6053 of 2024 Apprehending his arrest in connection with Taljhari P.S. Case No.68 of 2022 instituted for the offences punishable under Section 341/380/452/ 307/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act, 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 in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons by driving motorcycle, went to the house of the informant and the co-accused Lal Bahadur Sah attempted to murder his wife Guriya Kumari by firing upon her and also attempted to murder two sons of the petitioner by assaulting them with butts of the country-made pistol. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the co-accused, with similar allegations, has been given the privileges of anticipatory bail by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.05.2023 passed in A.B.A. No.1680 of 2023. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submits that the informant is post- occurrence eyewitness as he has seen the petitioner and other co-accused persons fleeing away from his house on two motorcycles after commission of the offence of attempt to murder his daughter by firing upon her. Hence, it is submitted that in view of the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, there is requirement of custodial interrogation the petitioner during the investigation of the case for recovery of the firearms and other 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 as well as the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case for recovery of the firearms and other 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/