IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.772 of 2025 ------ Suman Saha aged about 21 years S/o Sushil Saha R/o Village- Khaprajala, P.O. & P.S.- Pakur (Malpahari), District- Pakur, Jharkhand- 816107 .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Anup Kr. Agarwal, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Bandana Sinha, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-05-02-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Pakur Town P.S. Case No.217 of 2024 instituted under Sections 103(2)/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, 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, committed murder of Nozi Sheikh by assaulting him. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that in similar case, this Court in A.B.A. No.681 of 2025 dated 30.01.2025 has given the privilege of anticipatory bail to Anima Kumari @ Anima Gorai in connection with Bindapathar P.S. Case No.64 of 2023. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-18 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. 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 privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and he is the principal accused who led co-accused persons in committing murder of the deceased; hence, his custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case to find out the 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 to find out the details of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/