2025:JHHC:20960 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3973 of 2025 ---- Sawa Singh @Laddu Singh, S/o Late Gurdip Singh R/o Garabasa, Bagan Area, P.O. & P.S. Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate For the State : Ms. Vandna Bharti, A.P.P. ---- 05/ 29.07.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 41 of 2025, registered for offences punishable under Sections 111(3), 111(4), 112(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and Section 25(1- B)a, 25(1-A), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamshedpur. 3. As per the First Information Report, it has been alleged that one SIT was constituted to apprehend accused persons and control the chain snatching, firing and house breaking occurrences within Jamshedpur. In course of investigation of the occurrences of firing and snatching and on perusal of the CCTV footage, Lavepreet Singh @ Pendu and Bobby Singh and other persons named in the First Information Report have been identified to have executed the aforesaid occurrences under the leadership of Lavepreet Singh. It has also been alleged that the petitioner was also involved in various occurrences in different police stations areas of Jamshedpur. It has also been alleged that the petitioner used to extend financial help and vehicles to the miscreants. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a scarp dealer and has nothing to do with the alleged occurrence. There is neither any evidence on record to show petitioner’s connection with the other accused persons nor there is evidence of any monetary transactions with the accused persons. 5. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the state vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. She submits that it has 2025:JHHC:20960 -: 2 :- come in the confessional statement of co-accused that the petitioner is also involved in various occurrences and he also extends financial aid and vehicles as also looks after other needs of co-accused persons. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the records, I find that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner. It has transpired from the confessional statement of Lavpreet Singh that the petitioner had headed the group that committed theft at liquor stores across Jamshedpur and also financially aided the gang and provided vehicles. Further, keeping in view the seriousness of the offence, extensive investigation is required and even investigation in presence of the petitioner. 7. Considering all these facts, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. 8. This anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03