IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1804 of 2025 ------ 1. Jagal @ Jugal Tudu, aged about- 19 years Son of Babudhan Tudu, Resident of Village- Bara Balrampur, P.O. & P.S. Hiranpur, District- Pakur. 2. Ditpi Marandi aged about- 23 years Son of Sitaram Marandi, Resident of Village Deheri, P.O. & P.S. Littipara, District- Pakur. .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-24-03-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Hiranpur P.S. Case No.63 of 2024 instituted for the offences punishable under Section 103(1)/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, committed murder of Melcho Marandi- the mother of the informant. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is then submitted that except the confessional statement of the co-accused, there is no material in the record to implicate the petitioners in this case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of committing murder of Melcho Marandi; hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. 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 and the requirement of their 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 petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/