[2026:JHHC:28678] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.5257 of 2026 ------ 1. X 2. X1 3. X2 .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, Addl.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate ------ Order No:-02 Dated:-23-09-2026 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Ahilyapur P.S. Case No.23 of 2026 registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 118(2), 109(1), 308(3), 74, 352, 351(3), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioners attempted to murder Dhaneshwar, Ajay and Rajesh and outraged the modesty of the informant by tearing her blouse and used force to remove her saree and outraged her modesty and also demanded ransom amount. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is then submitted that police during the investigation of the case in the supervision note has been mentioned that, the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution regarding demand of ransom and outraging the modesty of Reshmi Devi. It is also submitted that except one injury which is grievous in nature all other injuries are simple in nature. It is further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case and to furnish sufficient security including cash security. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of attempting to murder the three victims, their custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case for recovery of the weapon of offence and other materials 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 of attempting to murder three victims and the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the above-named petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above- named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 23.09.2026 Saroj/