IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1221 of 2025 ------ Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Chourasiya @ Sunny Dx @ Sunny Chourasiya aged about 22 years, Son of Rajesh Chourasiya, resident of Road No.3, Srikrishna Gali, Vidyanagar, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, Ranchi, Dist.-Ranchi .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 21-02-2025 Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No.201 of 2024 registered under Sections 191(2)(3), 190, 126(2), 109, 303(2), 115(2), 117(2) and 351(2) of the B.N.S. 2023, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner was a member of unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object attempted the murder of Pritam Kumar Singh and Aryan Kumar Singh by stabbing them with knife and looted wallet of Pritam containing Rs.50,000/-, a gold chain and other valuables as well as Aryan’s wallet containing Rs.10,000/- and a gold ring. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-4 of the anticipatory bail application. It is lastly submitted that petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that he has committed the murder of victim. It is further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case for the recovery of the looted articles and to find out the details of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, as well as requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Rohit/