IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3166 of 2024 ------ Bajrangbali Mandal, aged about 28 years, S/O Late Arjun Mandal, R/O Village: Harla, P.O.-Dhamni & P.S.:Budhai, Distt.: Deoghar, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sarita Devi, D/o Mohan Sao, R/o-Vill-Lutiatand, P.O. + P.S.- Hariharpur, Dist.-Dhanbad. .... .... .... Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Arpit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Addl.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advocate ------ Order No.06 Dated- 05/03/2025 Heard the parties. This is the second journey of the petitioner for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail and earlier the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.06.2023 in A.B.A. No.2350 of 2023. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Dhanbad Mahila P.S. Case No.44 of 2020 registered under Section 420, 494, 372/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 cheated the informant and co-habited with the informant by deceit, causing the informant to believe that she is lawfully married to the petitioner. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that it is also alleged that the petitioner by practicing fraud and deception indulged in trafficking of the informant/opposite party no.2 by selling her for Rs.50,000/- to a person. It is next submitted that the petitioner never married the informant and as the brother of the informant always used to ask for money from the petitioner and took Rs.3,000,00/- by way of cash and further demanded Rs.6 lakhs, which was not paid by the petitioner, hence, this false case has been foisted. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that keeping in view of the indulgence of the petitioner in trafficking of human, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case in order to find out the details of the case. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and 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 privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/