IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1976 of 2025 ------ Vinod Sao @ Vinod Sahu aged about 52 years son of Late Pratap Sahu @ Shiv Prasad Sahu, Resident of village Kanda, P.O. and Police Station-Bishrampur, District-Palamu. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate : Mr. Amit Kr. Choubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 26/03/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Pratappur P.S. Case No.140 of 2024 registered under Section 103(1), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S.,2023 and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practice Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused has committed murder of Malti Devi by firing upon her. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that there is no specific allegation as to who out of three accused persons have fired upon the victim. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner 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 there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that earlier also the petitioner and the co-accused persons came and declared that they would commit the murder of Malti Devi and as per their declaration, they have committed the murder of Malti Devi by firing upon her from close range, hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case; to find out the details of the case and recovery of the firearm. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the 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 above-named petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/