( 2025:JHHC:11386 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1431 of 2025 ------ 1. Nader Sk aged about 56 years S/o- Iham Sk 2. Khabir Sk @ Md. Khabiruddin Sk aged about 60 Years s/o- Iham Sk @ Iham Vishwas 3. Samsul Sk aged about 55 Years s/o- Rafu Sk @ Rafijuddin Sk 4. Attar Hussain @ Aktar Hussain @ Akhtar Shaikh aged about 36 Years s/o- Rohim Sk 5. Delwar Sk @ Delwr Sk aged about 36 Years s/o- Nader Sk 6. Naim Sk @ Naim Akhtar @ Md. Nayeem Akhtar aged about 29 Years s/o- Khabir Sk @ Md. Khabiruddin 7. Asof Sk @ Md. Asafuddawla aged about 23 Years s/o- Jaynal Abedin 8. Mofijul Sk aged about 23 Years s/o- Abu Sufiyan 9. Safikul Sk aged about 27 Years s/o- Jakir Sk 10. Mansar Sk aged about 29 Years s/o- Abu Sufiyan 11. Tan Sk @ Tansar Sk aged about 29 Years s/o- Abu Sufiyan 12. Ali Haidar Sk @ Haidar Sk @ Haydar Sk age about 26 Years s/o Nader SK @ Nadir SK 13. Anwar Sk aged about 32 Years s/o- Rohim Sk @ Abdur Rohim Sk 14. Moktar Sk @ Moktar Hussain aged about 34 Years s/o- Rohim Sk @ Rahim 15. Daud Sk @ Daud Hussain aged about 23 Years s/o- Abdur Rahim @ Rohim Sk 16. Sadiur Sk aged about 25 Years s/o- Nader Sk All are R/O Village & P.O- Rahaspur, P.S Pakur (M), Dist. Pakur Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Md. Nasim Akhtar, Advocate Md. Yasir Arafat, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, Addl.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate ------ Order No.03 Dated-11-04-2025 I.A. No.3860 of 2025 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer for early hearing of the instant Anticipatory Bail Application. Since hearing of the instant Anticipatory Bail Application is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) I.A. No.4310 of 2025 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to withdraw/ not to press the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner No.2 namely Khabir Sk @ Md Khabiruddin Sk, petitioner No.3 namely Samsul Sk and the petitioner No.6 namely Naim Sk @ Naim Akhtar in this Anticipatory Bail Application. Considering the aforesaid facts, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 6 of this Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected as not pressed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) A.B.A. No. 1431 of 2025 1. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Pakur (Mufassil) P.S. Case No.246 of 2024 instituted under Sections 191(2)/190/126(2)/115/117/ 109/332(c)/303(2)/76/324(5)/352/351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioner No.14 namely Moktar Sk @ Moktar Hussain has also been arrested, hence, the learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner No.14 namely Moktar Sk @ Moktar Hussain. 3. So far as the remaining petitioners are concerned, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against them is that they were the members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of the assembly being armed with deadly weapons, attempted to murder the informant and his son causing grievous injury on their head, outraged the modesty of the daughter-in-law of the informant, disrobed the daughter-in-law of the informant and committed theft of cash of Rs.2,80,000/- and vandalized the house by destroying four Fridges, T.V., four show-cases, three motorcycles, four invertors and also looted 7 bhar of gold jewelries. It is submitted that the allegation against the said petitioners is false and general and omnibus in nature. It is then submitted that for the self-same occurrence from the side of the petitioners, petitioner No.4 first instituted Pakur (Mufassil) P.S. Case No.245 of 2024. Drawing attention of this court towards para-11 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said petitioners have no criminal antecedent. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the said petitioners and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the said petitioners, there is requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case for recovery of the looted cash and gold jewelries. Hence, it is submitted that the said petitioners ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. 5. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the said petitioners of, in an unorganized manner being armed with deadly weapons attempting to murder, outraging the modesty of the female member in the house and vandalizing the house as well as looting huge amount of cash and gold jewelries as well as the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case for recovery of the looted cash and gold jewelries, this Court is not inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the said petitioners. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail to the said petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/