IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 160 of 2025 Ourangjeb Khan @ Auranjeb Khan, aged about 25 years, son of Md Shamshul Khan, resident of village- Dhadhu, PO.- Bhaisadon, PS- Balumath, District- Latehar … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh , Adv. For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha , Addl.PP 02 / 20.01.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Chandwa P.S. Case No. 118 of 2024 registered under Sections 103, 3(5) of BNS, 2023. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed murder of Bablu Oraon by dashing his scooty from behind and when Bablu Oraon tried to stand up after the first dashing, the petitioner took back his vehicle and dashed Bablu Oraon again which resulted in the death of Bablu Oraon. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and no motive has been assigned to the petitioner for committing the murder of the deceased and the informant is not the eye witness to the occurrence. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of committing murder Bablu Oraon by first deliberately dashing his scooty and when Bablu Oraon fell down, the car was put in reverse gear and after going back two- three times, the petitioner dashed Bablu Oraon, which is out and out case of murder, hence, in view of serious allegation against the petitioner, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-