IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.967 of 2025 ------ 1. Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Dinesh Singh, aged about 50 years s/o Ram Pravesh Singh 2. Pinky Devi, aged about 45 years, w/o Dinesh Singh Both r/o vill. Husainpur, PO & PS Chakand Dist. Gaya Bihar 3. Shimpy Devi, aged about 36 years, w/o Shiv Kumar Singh @ Sheo Kumar @ Shiv Kumar 4. Shiv Kumar Singh @ Sheo Kumar @ Shiv Kumar, aged about 40 years, s/o Late Munshi Singh Both r/o vill. Barih Paimar PO & PS Wazirgars, Dist. Gaya, Bihar .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mother of Victim .... .... .... Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mahto, Advocate ------ Order No.02 Dated- 13-02-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No.148 of 2024 instituted under Sections 363, 366A, 379, 34 of the IPC, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that petitioners have enticed away the minor victim girl for solemnizing her marriage with someone. It is further submitted that after being kidnapped the minor victim girl is missing and her whereabouts cannot be known as yet. It is also submitted that allegation against the petitioners is false. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners 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 and submits that keeping in view of the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners of enticing away and kidnapping a minor girl; the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case as well as the recovery of the victim. 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 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.) Anjali/