IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 2068 of 2025 Vishvash Kumar, Aged about 20 years, Late Bhola Jaysawal, Resident of Son of Bhatti Mohalla, Laxmi Nagar, Piska More, Hehal, P.O.- Hehal, P.S.- Sukhdeonagar (Pandra O.P.), District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … opp. party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur , Adv. For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen , Addl.. PP 02 / 28.03.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 280 of 2024 registered under Sections 103 (1) and Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of the common intention with the co-accused persons, committed murder of Rohit Tirkey. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and only because in the CCTV footage, it was found that the petitioner was quarrelling with Rohit Tirkey; hence, he has been implicated in this case. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as mentioned in paragraph 10 of the anticipatory bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view of the serious allegation against the petitioner and as soon before the death of the deceased the petitioner was found quarrelling with Rohit Tirkey in the CCTV footage, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-