( 2026:JHHC:29931 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5571 of 2026 ------ 1. Ajit Kumar, aged about 19 years, son of Manoj Yadav 2. Mukesh Kumar, aged about 31 years, son of Tulsi Yadav 3. Sujit Kumar @ Sujeet Kumar, aged about 22 years, son of Manoj Yadav Petitioner No. 1 to 3 are residents of village –Jarga, P.O. – Gujhandi, P.S. Telaiya, District –Koderma, 4. Rohit Kumar, aged about 21 years, son of Sanjay Yadav, resident of village –Indrwa Basti, P.O. –Jhumri Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya, District –Koderma. … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 06.10.2026 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No.65 of 2026 registered under sections 115(2), 117(3), 118(1), 109(1), 351(2), 352, 126(2), 127(2), 303(2) and 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 attempted to murder the husband of the informant namely Ajay Yadav and committed theft of Rs.9060/-. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that the petitioners are involved in one criminal case of similar nature being Telaiya P.S. Case No. 66 of 2026 and they are also involved in another criminal case of Excise Act, the number of which has not been disclosed by the petitioners. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the co-accused persons have already been given the privilege of anticipatory bail by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 06.08.2026 in A.B.A. No. 4384 of 2026. 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 indulging in the offence of attempt to murder in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, there is requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioners during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case and to recover the stolen property and in view of the criminal antecedents of the petitioners, the details of which has not been furnished by the petitioners, there is every chance of the petitioners absconding and tampering with the 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 as well as the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case as also chance of the petitioners absconding and tampering with the evidence, if given the privilege of anticipatory bail, 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.) 06.10.2026 Sonu/