( 2026:JHHC:29272 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5437 of 2026 ------ 1. Md. Abul Ansari @ Md. Abul Ali, aged about 38 years, son of late Ahmad Ansari 2. Nasima Khatun, aged about 36 years, wife of Abul Ansari 3. Gayasuddin Ansari @ Gyasuddin Ansari, aged about 48 years, son of Usman Ansari 4. Sazid Ansari @ Sajid Ansari, aged about 31 years, son of Uddin Mian 5. Samir Hussain @ Sameer Hussain, aged about 30 years, son of late Ahmad Ali All resident of Village-Jharkhi, P.O.-Samda, P.S.-Birni, Dist.-Giridih … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. S.K. Murtty, Advocate For the State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.03 Dated- 29.09.2026 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Birni (Barkatta O.P.) P.S. Case No.218 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 191(2)/ 191(3)/ 190/ 115(2)/ 117(2)/ 109(1)/303(2)/74/76/79/61(2) of the B.N.S., 2023. The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were member of unlawful assembly and being armed with deadly weapons attempted to murder Kushal Mahto, Churaman Mahto, Sanju Kumari, Baby Kumari, Hemraj Mahto, Madni Devi and Sanju Kumar Verma, attempted to commit rape upon Renu Devi and committed theft of gold chain of Rekha Devi. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. 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 murderous assault upon the victim and attempt to commit rape upon one of the victims, 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. 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, 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.) 29.09.2026 Gunjan-