[2025:JHHC:10709] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 3676 of 2024 Gulam Kibria Sk. aged about 41 years, son of Shahid Sk., resident of Village Jarur, P.O.- Jarur, P.S. -Jangipur, District Murshidabad, West Bengal. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … opp. party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Durga C.Mishra, Adv. For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl. PP. 04 / 07.04.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Dumka (M) University O.P. P.S. Case No. 204 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the leader of gang of criminals which in an organized manner, are involved in committing dacoity and specialized in looting water supply pipe, optical fiber, cable copper wire etc. and they have committed dacoity and looted 300 pcs. of water supply pipes of the informant. It is also alleged that the petitioner is the owner of the truck in which looted pipes were transported after the same being looted. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of the confessional statement of the co- accused. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent , as mentioned in paragraph 10 of the anticipatory bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Spl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that he is a leader of the gang of criminals who indulged in committing the dacoity in an organised manneer, hence, in view of serious allegation against the petitioner, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during investigation of the case to find out the details of the gang of criminals. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-