IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 698 of 2025 ------ 1. Sarobi Devi @ Suromi Kumari, aged about 19 years, daughter of Santosh Mandal 2. Sulekha Devi, aged about 36 years, wife of Santosh Mandal, both resident of Village-Uttari Begamganj, P.O.- Begamganj, P.S.-Radhanagar, Dist.-Sahibganj … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Abhinav Raj, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Amrita Kumari, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 30.01.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Radhanagar P.S. Case No.138 of 2024 registered under sections 126(2)/103(1)/303(2)/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons committed murder of the husband of the informant namely Narad Mandal. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and though there is allegation against the petitioners of squeezing of the testicles of the deceased but there is no damage of the testicles of the deceased detected in the postmortem report. It is then submitted that the petitioners undertake to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that keeping in view the direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of being instrumental in commission of the murder of the deceased Narad Mandal, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners and the requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioners during the investigation of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-