IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1719 of 2025 ------ 1. Sagar Pandey @ Prem Sagar Pandey, aged about 32 years, s/o Kuber Pandey, r/o Chak, Lohadi, Bahera PO Lohadi PS Chouparan Dist. Hazaribagh, Jharkhand 2. Anup Pandey @ Anup Kumar, aged about 26 years, s/o Kuber Pandey, r/o Chak Lohadi Bahera, PO Lohadi PS Chouparan, Dist. Hazaribagh, Jharkhand 3. Kundan Pandey, @ Kundan Kumar, aged about 16 years, s/o Kuber Pandey, r/o Chak, Lohadi Bahera, PO Lohadi PS Chouparan, Dist. Hazaribagh, Jharkhand 4. Anita Devi, aged about 43 years, w/o Kuber Pandey, r/o Chak Lohadi Bahera PO Lohadi, PS Chouparan, Dist. Hazaribagh, Jharkhand 5. Kuber Pandey, aged about 51 years, s/o Dhaneshwar Pandey, r/o Chak, Lohadi, Bahera PO Lohadi PS Chouparan, Dist. Hazaribagh, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocates For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, APP ------ Order No.02 Dated- 18-03-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Chouparan P.S. Case No.151 of 2022, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354(B)/506/ 376/511/34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 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 had earlier committed the murder of father-in-law of the informant and during the pendency of the said case, again being armed with deadly weapons and they came to the -2- house of the informant, disrobed the informant, attempted to commit rape upon her and tried to kill the informant by throttling her neck with her saree; which was removed by them and were taking the informant and her mother- in-law who was also disrobed, forcibly on the allegation that they are Daain and petitioners were taking the informant and her mother-in-law to parade them naked in the village, after tonsuring their head. It is next submitted that the main allegation is against petitioner nos. 1 &2. It is next submitted that allegation against the petitioners is false and the allegation is general and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that the dispute that cropped-up between the parties pertains to land; hence, this false case has been foisted. It is then submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case and though there are five cases pending against the petitioners but they are all old matters. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges 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 the disdain of the petitioners towards law, as though they committed murder of the father-in-law of the informant, but that did not satisfy them and they further went up again to eliminate and torture the informant and her mother-in-law in most inhuman and brutal manner, by attempting to commit rape upon them and trying to parade them naked in the village by forcing them to leave their property . Hence, it is submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. 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 this case, as also the criminal antecedent of two of the petitioners, as they were involved in commission of murder of none-other than the father-in-law of the informant; who is the husband of the mother-in- law of the informant- the other victim of this case; during the pendency of the said order case against them, 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. -3- Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anjali/