( 2025:JHHC:10053 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2104 of 2025 ------ Gourav Mistri @ Gaurav, aged about 23 years, son of Gour Gopal, resident of 61 GH, Jaipur Road, Rajiv Para, Infront of Mahindra Showroom, Adawal, P.O. & P.S.-Adawal, Dist.- Bastar, State-Chhattisgarh … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sourav Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 02.04.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Kadma P.S. Case No.202 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 103(1)/61(2)/303(2) of the B.N.S., 2023. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons has committed murder of Shobha Sahu and committed theft of her purse and mobile. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner is resident of Bastar, Chhattisgarh which is 1000 kilometre away from the place of occurrence. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that there is direct involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the murder which has come to notice during the investigation of the case and the petitioner has suppressed the fact that he visited Jamshedpur from 01.09.2024 to 03.09.2024. It is then submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that the petitioner has not come to court with clean hands. It is further submitted that, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of being involved in commission of murder of the deceased as well as theft of her valuables and also the requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioner during the investigation of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-