IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.7907 of 2024 ------ Ashish Kumar @ Ashish Verma @ Chiku Kumar .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.03 Dated- 02-01-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Karanj P.S. Case No.01 of 2024 registered under Section 379, 411, 364, 302, 201, 120 (B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, in criminal conspiracy with the co- accused persons, has committed the murder of one Dilip Singh after abducting him and committed theft of a pick-up van and caused disappearance of the evidence of murder of the said Dilip Singh. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. It is also submitted that the police has already submitted charge-sheet against the co-accused persons. It is then submitted that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and a student. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege 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 keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of having committed the murder after abducting the deceased- Dilip Singh for ransom, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to find out the details of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and 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 abovenamed petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/