IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 1698 of 2025 1. Md. Rinkal @ Md. Tofique Anwar, age about 25 years, son of Majhar Ali 2. Md. Raja @ Hamid Raza @ Hamid Razza, age about 21 years, son of Mubarak Hussain 3. Anish Raza @ Anish Rajja, age about 23 years, son of Riyazuddin Ansari 4. Md. Mujjaffar Ansari @ Muzaffar Ansari, age about 21 years, son of Manir Miyan All are residents of village Bhelwara, P.O. Dadpur, P.S. Muffasil, Dist. Hazaribag, Jharkhand. … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … opp. party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kr. Soni , Adv. For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam , Addl.. PP 02 / 12.03.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Hazaribagh Muffasil P.S. Case No. 247 of 2024 registered under Sections 191 (2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 118 (1), 117 (2), 109, 352, 351 (2) of BNS, 2023. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were the members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, attempted to murder the informant and caused grievous injury on the head of the victim. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and those allegations are general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the genesis of the occurrence is quarrel between the parties during volleyball match. It is next submitted that the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case hence, the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners, of assaulting the informant and his son, in organized manner attacking, without any provocation causing grievous injury to them, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during investigation of the case for recovery of the weapons of the offence such as sword, axe and bhujali. It is therefore submitted that the petitioners ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious allegations against the petitioners and the requirement of their 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 petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-