IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 215 of 2025 ------ Ayush Kumar Pandey @ Ayush Pandey, aged about 22 years, S/o Abhimanyu Pandey, R/o Chirayaghat Road, P.O. Giridih, P.S. –Giridih, District –Giridih. … Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Kumar No.1, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 21.01.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Giridih (T) P.S. Case No.67 of 2024 registered under sections 341/323/325/ 307/379/427/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for anticipatory bail and earlier the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn after some argument. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons attempted to murder the brother of the informant with lathi, danda and iron rod with an intention to kill him, causing grievous injury and also took away seven to eight thousand rupees from the cash locker of the victim and also snatched gold chain of the informant. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that the petitioner has two criminal antecedents and in both the cases, he is on bail. It is then submitted that there is a delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner is a threat to the law-and-order situation in the locality. It is then submitted that there is every chance of the petitioner tampering with evidence and absconding, if released on bail. It is next submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case and for recovery of the weapons of assault. It is then submitted that as the victim sustained severe injury, hence he first underwent treatment and after a couple of days, when he became fit to give his statement, only the F.I.R. could be registered. Hence, it is 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 custodial interrogation to find out the details of the case and for recovery of the weapon of offence as also the chance of his tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-