IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1238 of 2025 ------ Anitya Kumar, aged about 19 years, S/O Chandrabansh Kumar Srivastava, R/O Prasad Market, Lohar Tola, Near Ashoka Hotel, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh & District Ramgarh, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl.P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 21/02/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.194 of 2024 registered under Section 190, 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 351(2) & 303(2) of the B.N.S., 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was taking liquor and on being forbade by the informant and others, he attempted to murder Ankit Sah and the informant Nitin Kumar Singh causing grievous injury on his temporal region. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. 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 Spl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner is a threat to the law-and-order situation of the locality, hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case in order to find out the weapon of assault 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, 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/