( 2025:JHHC:10332 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.6674 of 2024 ------ 1. Ruplal Murmu, age about 43 years s/o Late Dhudhum Kora @ Dhudhum Murmu, 2. Ashis Kora age about 45 years S/o Jhunur Kora, 3. Raju Murmu age about 36 years s/o late Roben Murmu, 4. Bittu Mirdha age about 19 years, s/o Sriram Mirdha, 5. Jogendra Murmu @ Jayendra Murmu, age about 36 years s/o Devicharan @ Devicharan Murmu. All are r/o village-Salgpara, Tola Lagdum, P.O. & P.S.-Pakuria, District-Pakur (Jharkhand). .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Md. Yasir Arafat, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.04 Dated- 03/04/2025 I.A. No.3858 of 2025 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer for early hearing of the instant anticipatory bail application. Since, the hearing of instant anticipatory bail application is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) A.B.A. No.6674 of 2024 Apprehending their arrest in connection with Pakuria P.S. Case No.14 of 2024 instituted for the offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 354, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. 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 attempted to murder Merila Hembrom, Govind Murmu and Saheb Murmu and outraged the modesty of Merila Hembrom. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that one of the relatives of the informant has filed complaint case no.46 of 2023 against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that while the informant lady was returning from the dam after taking bath, the petitioners dragged her towards the bushes and as the informant raised hue and cry; hearing the same, the husband and the brother-in-law of the informant came to rescue her, but the petitioners attempted to murder them by assaulting them with iron rod causing grievous injury to informant and also took away the silver necklace and pushed the husband of the informant in front of a truck which was coming on road and only because the truck driver applied sudden brake, the husband of the informant could be saved. It is next submitted that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case in order to find out the details of the case and recovery of the weapon of offence. 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, 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.) Abhiraj/