IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.695 of 2025 ------ Abdul Jabbar Miyan @ Abdul Jabbar Ansari @ Abdul Ansari, aged about 80 years son of Late Ajij Miyan resident of Village Peshrar Tola Pechegarha, P.O. & P.S. Latehar, District-Latehar, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rahul, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 30/01/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No.193 of 2024 registered under Sections 109(1)/118(1)/126(2)/352/351(2)(3)/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons has committed the murder of the father of the informant namely Abdul Hakim Miyan. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that there is delay of 2 days in lodging the FIR, the witnesses namely Ibadat Ansari, Rakiba Bibi and Jamila Khatun have not stated anything to implicate the petitioner in this case. It is next submitted that the petitioner is 80 years old and the deceased was 85 years old and because of land dispute between the parties, this false case has been foisted. 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 grant of anticipatory bail and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed the murder of the father of the informant, hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case for recovery of the weapon of offence and other details of the case. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the 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 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/