IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1815 of 2025 ------ 1. Ajit Kumar Singh, aged about 18 years, S/O Ram Naresh Singh 2. Arvind Kumar Singh @ Munda aged about 22 years S/O Yamuna Singh, Both resident of vill-Balekhand, P.O. & P.S.-Dandai, District-Garhwa. .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Shashikant Ojha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 24/03/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Dandai P.S. Case No.56 of 2024 instituted under Sections 76/64, 62 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 8 of POCSO 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 in furtherance of their common intention with the co-accused persons committed sexual assault upon the minor victim girl aged 14 years by forcibly dragging her towards the bushes for establishing physical relationship with her; while the minor girl was returning from her school. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that due to old dispute, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. 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 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation of sexual assault upon the minor victim girl of 14 years, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are required during the investigation of the case in order 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 and the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, 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. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/