IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.821 of 2025 ------ Saheb Bhuiyan @ Saiba Bhuiya, aged about 31 years, s/o-Daso Bhuiyan, R/o-Vill-Semratarh, P.O. & P.S.-Chainpur, Dist.-Palamau, State-Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 07-02-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No.65 of 2024 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341 and 302 of the I.P.C., the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner was member of unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of the assembly armed with deadly weapons committed the gruesome murder of Rajesh Sao and Sujit Bhuiya. It is next submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R and he has been implicated in this case only on the basis confessional statement of co- accused persons. It is last submitted that petitioner is ready and cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner for committing brutal murder of two innocent persons. It is further submitted that keeping in view the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner indulging in different kind of offences, if released on bail. It is then submitted that, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation 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, his criminal antecedent as well as 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 petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Rohit/