( 2026:JHHC:29397 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5476 of 2026 ------ 1. Kabir Bhagat @ Kabir Kumar Bhagat, aged about 20 years, s/o Rishi Kumar Bhagat 2. Ritik Bhagat @ Ritik Kumar Bhagat, aged about 23 years, s/o Rishi Kumar Bhagat Both are residents of Village-Ghat Bhandaridih, P.O.+P.S.- Mahagama, Dist.-Godda, Jharkhand … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Vidhika Saboo, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 30.09.2026 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Mahagama P.S. Case No.113 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 115(1)/ 117(2)/ 126(2)/ 109/ 103(1)/ 352/351(2)/351(3)/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention has committed the murder of Subodh Pandey-the husband of the informant. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and there is inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR. It is next submitted that the deceased died 14 days after the alleged occurrence during the course of his treatment and petitioners have no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 15 of the anticipatory bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners 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 keeping in view the direct allegation against the petitioners of committing murder of Subodh Pandey, there is requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioners during the investigation of the case for recovery of weapon of offence and other details of the case as well as there is every chance of the petitioners absconding and tampering with evidence, if given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners and the requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioners during the investigation of the case as well as there is every chance of the petitioners absconding and tampering with evidence, if given the privilege of anticipatory bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the abovenamed petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 30.09.2026 Gunjan-