IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.7958 of 2024 ------ Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Mehta aged about 25 years son of Sitaram Kushwaha, resident of Village-Harli Petu, P.O. & P.S.- Muffasil, District-Hazaribagh. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Ms. Jyoti Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.03 Dated- 10/01/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Lohsinghna P.S. Case No.62 of 2024 registered under Section 323, 324, 325, 326, 307, 341, 342, 147, 148, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of the assembly attempted to murder the victim namely Amit Kumar Singh. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. 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 as has been mentioned in the rejection order of A.B.P. No.931 of 2024 dated 29.06.2024, the injury report of Amit Kumar Singh shows that there was moderate size confluent hemorrhagic parenchymal contusions with subarachnoid hemorrhage seen in left high fronto-parietal region and there was fracture on left frontal bone, extending up to sphenoid bone and fracture in right frontal process of maxilla with soft tissue swelling. It is next submitted that keeping in view the serious nature of injury sustained by the petitioner and the overwhelming evidence against the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding if released on bail. It is then submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to recover the weapon of offence and other incriminating articles. It is lastly 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 and chance of his absconding if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/