IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 4759 of 2024 Fariyad Ansari, aged about 27 years, Son of Patagado Kochia Salim Ansari, Resident of Village- Patagado Kochia, P.O.- Kochia & P.S. Bishunpura, Dist.- Garhwa … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … opp. party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava , Adv. For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto , Addl.. PP For the informant : Mr. Shailesh Kr.Singh , Adv. Mr. Abhijeet Kr.Singh , Adv. Ms. Rashmi Lal, Adv. 05 / 27.02.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Chirkunda (Maithan) P.S. Case No. 16 of 2024 registered under Sections 366, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of the common intention with the co-accused person, has abducted the wife of the informant and on earlier occasion also, the petitioner abducted her but this time, the whereabouts of the victim could not be traced out. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is unexplained delay of one month and 13 days in lodging the FIR and the victim is a major lady. 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 Addl. PP and learned counsel for the informant vehemently oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that in view of serious allegation against the petitioner, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during investigation of the case to find out the whereabouts of the abducted wife of the informant. 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/-