IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1899 of 2025 ------ 1. Gangiya Devi @ Gangi Devi, aged about 44 years, w/o Budhram Oroan, r/o Village-Harchanda, Barwe, P.O.- Dahu, P.S.-Ormanjhi, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. Jayanti Devi, aged about 33 years, w/o Kamal Oraon, r/o Village-Harchanda, Barwe, P.O.-Dahu, P.S.-Ormanjhi, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 24.03.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Ormanjhi P.S. Case No.93 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 323/325/307/341/188/120B/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons has committed murder of Lalita Devi and attempted to murder several others from the side of the informant being armed with deadly weapons along with the co-accused persons. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and the petitioners are females. It is next submitted that the petitioners are the owners of the land in dispute. It is then submitted that the petitioners undertake to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that in view of the serious nature of allegation of committing murder of Lalita Devi and also attempted to murder others, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case and for recovery of weapons of assault. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners and the requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioners during the investigation of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-