[2025:JHHC:10265] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.2151 of 2025 ------ 1. Toufik @ Tofik Ansari, aged about 34 years, 2. Ofik @ Offik Ansari, aged about 30 years, Both are Sons of Sainul Ansari, Resident of Village- Near Masjid, Galhowar, P.O.- Kharki, P.S.- Bishnugarh, District- Hazaribag, (Jharkhand) .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 03-04-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Bishnugarh P.S. Case No.133 of 2024 registered under Sections 103 (1), 3 (5) of the B.N.S, 2023 and Section 25 (1-B) (a), 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, have committed the murder of Safaruddin Ansari. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the petitioners have been implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion. It is further submitted that because of admitted land dispute between the parties, this false case has been foisted against the petitioners. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-10 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. 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 against the petitioners of being in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, committing the murder of Safaruddin Ansari, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required to find out the weapon of offence as well as other details of the case. Hence, it is 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.) Animesh/