IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 8164 of 2024 1. Krishna Prasad Keshri, aged about 42 years, S/o Kedar Saw 2. Bikash Pd. Keshri, aged about 30 years, S/o Kedar Prasad Keshri, both resident of village- Saraiya, P.O. & P.S.- Padma, Dist.- Hazaribagh … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalan Kr. Singh , Adv. For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, Addl. PP. 04 / 13.01.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Barhi (Padma) P.S. Case No. 579 of 2023 registered under Sections 302, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, committed murder of the husband of the informant and caused disappearance of the evidence of the murder. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and those allegations are general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that first on the basis of the report of the informant, U.D. case no. 08 of 2023 was registered on the date of the occurrence and this case, has been foisted only to harass the petitioners. It is next submitted that the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case hence, the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of assaulting and forcibly putting the deceased inside a well and committed his murder, hence, in view of serious allegation against the petitioners, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during investigation of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioners ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious allegations against the petitioners and the requirement of their 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 petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-