( 2025:JHHC:10463 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5521 of 2024 ------ Kirti Bhusan Gope, aged about 55, S/o Late Kalidas Gope, R/o Vill –Buruhatu, P.O. –Buruhatu, P.S. –Ichagarh, Dist - Seraikella –Kharsawan, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. District Supply Officer-cum-District Manager, Jharkhand State Food Corporation, Seraikella –Kharsawan, P.O.+P.S. – Seraikella, District –Seraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand. … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate : Mr. Abhishek Kr. Dubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. ------ Order No.05 Dated- 03.04.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Chandil P.S. Case No.42 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409/420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner while posted as Assistant Godown Manager of Chandil Godown of Jharkhand State Food Corporation has committed criminal breach of trust by committing dishonest misappropriation of huge amount of rice and wheat to the tune of Rs.2,12,98,976.32/-. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and as the petitioner was given the charge of two godown i.e. at Chandil and Ichagarh which are at a distance from each other, taking advantage of the same, misappropriation has been done by Naveen Kumar Sharma in connivance with the dealers and shop owners behind the back of the petitioner and the petitioner is not responsible for the same. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not been served notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. It is lastly submitted that after the order of no-coercive steps passed in this case, the petitioner went ten times to the police station. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that keeping in view the dishonest misappropriation of huge amount of rice and wheat, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is highly essential during the investigation of the case for recovery of the misappropriated rice and wheat. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege 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 for recovery of the huge amount of misappropriated rice and wheat, this Court is not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the above named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-