IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.495 of 2025 ------ Nagendra Kumar @ Nagendra Dangi, aged about 24 Years son of Pritam Dangi resident of village Dhodhi, Post office Mandhania, Police Station Mayurhand, District- Chatra, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalit Yadav,Advocate Mr. Manish Yadav, Advocate For the State : Ms. Sushma Aind, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-28-01-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Mayurhand P.S. Case No.48 of 2024 instituted under Sections 118(1)/118(2)/126(2)/109/74/ 352/351(1)(2)/3(5) of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons outraged the modesty of the informant by tearing her blouse and when the father-in-law of the informant protested, attempted to murder him by assaulting on his head with an axe causing grievous injury to him. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, his custodial interrogation is required for recovery of the weapons of offence as well as other details of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges 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 not inclined to grant the privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/