( 2026:JHHC:29162 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5394 of 2026 ------ Kamlesh Kumar @ Kamlesh Yadav, aged about 22 years, son of Rit Lal Yadav, resident of Village Naisarai, P.O. Ramgarh Cantt, P.S. Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh, State –Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 28.09.2026 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.126 of 2026 registered under sections 109(1), 126(2), 115(2), 118(2), 74 of the B.N.S., 2023. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner outraged the modesty of the informant and when the other victim -Rahul Tiwari came to the rescue of the informant, the petitioner attempted to murder him by assaulting him with a knife causing severe injury on his hand requiring sixteen stitches to be put in his hand. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that this is a counter blast case in respect of the occurrence which took place on 23.12.2023 in respect of which complaint case no. 63 of 2024 was filed by the mother of the petitioner. 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 keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of attempting to commit murder as well as outraging the modesty of the informant, there is requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioner during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. It is next submitted that this occurrence relates to 21.05.2026 which is more than two years after the occurrence in respect of which complaint case no. 63 of 2024 was filed and that too copy of no summoning order has been filed in connection with that case; in this anticipatory bail application. So, the contention of the petitioner that this case is a counter blast case is not sustainable in law. 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 as well as the requirement of his 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 petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 28.09.2026 Sonu/