( 2026:JHHC:29997 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5623 of 2026 ------ Bikram Mandal, aged about 33 years, s/o late Banmali Mandal, r/o Village-Amanat, P.O.-Piyarpur, P.S.- Radhanagar, Dist.-Sahebganj … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Ms. Neha Kumari, Advocate For the State : Ms. Bandana Sinha, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 07.10.2026 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Radhanagar P.S. Case No.85 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 126(2)/ 115(2)/ 117(2)/ 74/ 303(2)/ 109(1)/352/351(2)/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons attempted to murder the informant by assaulting on his head, tore her blouse and sari and also committed theft of her gold chain (mangalsutra). It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 12 of the anticipatory bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case. 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 of the informant and also committed theft of her gold chain, there is requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioner during the investigation of the case for recovery of weapon of offence and the stolen golden chain as well as other details of the case. 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 and the requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioner 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 petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 07.10.2026 Gunjan-