IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1355 of 2025 ------ 1. Baijnath @ Baijnath Kumar Das @ Bablu Kumar Das, aged about 20 years, 2. Shravan Kumar Das @ Sarvan Kumar, aged about 18 years, 3. Ankit Kumar Das @ Ankit Kumar, aged about 19 years, All are sons of Sukhdev Ravidas, resident of village – Sijuwa Pahari, Harijan Tola, P.O. & P.S. –Dugdha, District –Bokaro. … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate : Mrs. Pinki Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 27.02.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Dugdha P.S. Case No.29 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126, 115, 117, 109, 352 and 3 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 co-accused persons, attempted to murder the husband of the informant causing grievous injury and fracture in left temporal and left parietal bone of the victim. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners undertake to co- operate with the investigation of the case and to furnish sufficient security including cash security. 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 anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of assaulting on the head of the victim namely Rajkumar Ravidas with stone and thereafter with iron rod, causing grievous injury on the head of the victim, hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case in order to find out the weapon of offence used in the occurrence. 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 of assaulting on the head of the victim causing grievous injury on his head as well as 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 abovenamed petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-