IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3898 of 2024 ------ Dilip Kumar Yadav, aged about 34 years, S/o Rasbihari Yadav, residents of Village-Khatanga, P.O. and P.S.-Sonahatu, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.07 Dated- 18/02/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No.32 of 2023 registered under Section 15/18/25/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in cultivation of opium in a field belonging to Nehru Khariya; who was not residing in the village- the location of which has been mentioned in the FIR with its longitude and latitude. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR but as the villagers disclosed that the person who owns the mobile phone bearing sim no.7294085136 was involved in illegal cultivation of opium, hence, he has been implicated in this case. 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 the cultivation of opium was in excess of commercial quantity and the petitioner is not residing of the village concerned and without disclosing his identity, he was involved in cultivation and the villages could know him only because of mobile number which he shared to the villagers to communicate with them, hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the cultivation of opium and the supply chain of the same. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation of being involved in cultivation of opium in commercial quantity and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case and in the absence of any material to suggest that the allegations against the petitioner is false or that the petitioner will not indulge in any offence, if release on bail, 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/