IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.8189 of 2024 ------ 1. Yogendra Singh, aged about 30 years, son of Kalicharan Singh 2. Upendra Singh, aged about 25 years, son of Kalicharan Singh 3. Jagdish Singh, aged about 38 years, son of Kalicharan Singh 4. Kalicharan Singh, aged about 54 years, son of Anat Singh All are residents of Village Lali, P.O. & P.S. Manika, Dist. Latehar .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Addl.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Nandan Prasad, Advocate ------ Order No.02 Dated- 20-01-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Manika P.S. Case No.50 of 2024 registered under Section 3 (5), 109, 115 (2), 118 (1), 127 (1) of the B.N.S., 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, have attempted to murder the informant- Ajay Yadav, his wife- Manju Devi as well as their daughter. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that there is land dispute between the parties, hence, this false case has been foisted against the petitioners and they have been arrayed as accused. It is also submitted that the petitioners had no intention to kill anybody. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State being assisted by the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submit that the informant- Ajay Yadav, his wife- Manju Devi have sustained grievous injuries on their head and the daughter of the informant namely Rekha Kumari has sustained grievous injuries and there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of not even sparing the wife of the informant causing grievous injuries on her little finger and causing injuries on the head of the informant. Hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case as well as weapon of offence. It is therefore submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners and the requirement of their 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 petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the abovenamed petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/