IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1123 of 2025 ------ Santosh Mandal S/o Ram Krishna Mandal, aged about 38 years, r/o Baroda Ghat, PO & PS Jugsalai, Town Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbum, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 19/02/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Sidhgora P.S. Case No.144 of 2021 registered under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed murder of Neha Dubey and caused disappearance of the evidence of the murder. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner is not name in the FIR and only because the petitioner was alleged to be in relationship with the deceased, the mobile number of the petitioner and the deceased, disclosed that there was series of communication between them, the same has raised a suspicion regarding the involvement of the petitioner, in commission of the murder of the deceased. It is next submitted that there is no eye witness of the occurrence. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case. 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 keeping in view of serious nature of allegation of commission of murder of the lady by the petitioner, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case, to find out the 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 and 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/