IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1495 of 2025 ------ 1. Govinda Rana, aged about 25 years, Son of Bishnu Rana @ Bishram Rana, Resident of Villge –Pahridih, P.O. –Kunda, P.S. –Kunda, District –Deoghar, Jharkhand. 2. Bablu Rana, aged about 22 years, Son of Bishnu Rana @ Bishram Rana, Resident of Village –Pahridih, P.O. –Kunda, P.S. –Kunda, District –Deoghar, Jharkhand. 3. Bishnu Rana @ Bishram Rana, aged about 44 years, Son of Late Meghu Rana, Resident of Village –Pahridih, P.O.- Kunda, P.S. –Kunda, District –Deoghar, Jharkhand. … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate : Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 05.03.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Kunda P.S. Case No.31 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 has committed the murder of Sarita Devi. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and no specific overt act or role of each of the petitioners has been attributed in the murder of the deceased. It is then submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in para-08 of the instant anticipatory bail application. It is then submitted that the deceased accidently fell down inside the well and died. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that in the F.I.R. itself, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of assaulting the deceased and the deceased has intimated the same over phone to the informant and the deceased has also intimated the informant that that the petitioners have overheard the communication of information about assault upon her by them to the informant and the deceased expressed her apprehension that petitioners will murder her in that fateful night itself. It is next submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the occurrence. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners of having committed the murder of the deceased in further of their common intention and the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the above-named petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-