( 2026:JHHC:29164 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5398 of 2026 ------ 1. S.R. Khan @ Raja Khan @ Saqlain Raja Khan, aged about 23 years, son of Late Md. Alim Khan, Resident of Telco, P.O. & P.S. –Telco, District –East Singhbhum. 2. Arish Khan @ Md. Arish, aged about 16 years, son of Md. Salim Khan, resident of House No. 03, Road No. 4, Husaini Mohalla, Barinagar, P.O. & P.S. –Telco, District –East Singhbhum. 3. Sohail Khan @ Md. Sohail @ Md. Sohale @ Sohail, aged about 20 years, son of Md. Salim Khan, resident of House No. 32, Road No. 03, Near Football ground, P.O. & P.S. – Telco, District –East Singhbhum. … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Devesh Ajmani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 28.09.2026 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Telco P.S. Case No.70 of 2026 registered under sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 74, 303(2), 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 common intention with the co-accused persons assaulted Swadhin Banerjee; in respect of which occurrence Swadhin Banerjee lodged a case is Govindpur Police Station and a settlement was arrived at in the police station that the petitioners were to give Rs.20,000/- for the treatment of Swadhin Banerjee. It is further alleged that the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention came to the house of the informant and accused him to be an agent of police and the petitioner along with the co-accused persons caught hold of the informant and thrashed him on the ground and to kill him throttled his neck and when the family members came to his rescue, the petitioners inappropriately caught hold of the daughter- in-law of the informant namely –Jeba Khan and inappropriately touched her including her private parts and chest and threatened to commit rape of the daughter of the informant to make the video viral and also committed theft of the gold chain of the informant. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that the petitioners have criminal antecedents as mentioned in para-20-22 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 serious nature of allegations against the petitioners as well as their criminal antecedent, there is requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioners during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. 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 as well as 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 privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 28.09.2026 Sonu/