IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.806 of 2025 ------ 1. Sayed Shekh, age about 42 years, s/o Indadul Shekh @ Emdadul Shekh 2. Ujeer Shekh @ Ujir Shekh aged about 48 years, son of Emdadul Shekh 3. Asraful Shekh, aged about 45 years, son of Tajamul Shekh 4. Nakimuddin Sk @ Nakimuddin Shekh, age about 62 years, son of late Md. Jasimuddin 5. Miskatul Shekh @ Meskatul Shekh age about 23 years son of Asraful Shekh 6. Motalim Shekh age about 36 years son of Meres Shekh @ Meresh Shekh All are r/o village Rahaspur, P.O. Rahaspur, P.S. Pakur (M), District- Pakur (Jharkhand) .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Md. Yasir Arafat, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanat Kr. Jha, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 06-02-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Pakur Muffasil P.S. Case No.245 of 2024 registered under Sections 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 126 (2), 115, 117, 109, 324 (5), 303 (2), 352, 351 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, attempted to murder Mansar Sheikh and Mofi Sheikh, committed theft of 35 kg of Desi Chicken and Poultry Chicken from the shop of the informant and also snatched away Rs.30,000/- from his pocket. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that there was a free fight between the parties and for the self-same occurrence, from the side of the petitioners, the brother of the petitioners also lodged Pakur (M) P.S. Case No.246 of 2024. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners 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 the petitioners have criminal antecedent as is mentioned in the rejection order of their anticipatory bail passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur. It is next submitted that in view of serious nature of allegation against the petitioners, their custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. 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, their criminal antecedent as well as 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 above-named petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/