IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2708 of 2024 ------ Amjad Khan, Aged about 35 years, son of Nasim Khan, Resident of Village+P.O. Hesla, P.S. –Bagodar, District – Giridih (Pin-825322). … Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate : Mr. Rahul Basak, Advocate : Mr. Suman Ghosh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.13 Dated- 16.01.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Gomia P.S. Case No.15 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 199 of 2024 registered under sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 30 of the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is habitually involved in commission of theft of coal from the collieries and police seized the truck of the petitioner while transporting 30 tons of stolen coal. It is then submitted that the petitioner is involved in 9 other cases relating to theft of coal and allied offences out of which in some cases, he is on bail and in one case his anticipatory bail has been rejected. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. 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 the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the network of stolen coal managed by the petitioner. It is then submitted that in view of the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail. 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 to find out the details of the network of stolen coal managed by the petitioner as also chances of his absconding, this Court is not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-