2025:JHHC:16822 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6967 of 2024 ---- Mahboob Alam @ Mahboom Alam, S/o Mohammad Ajimullah, R/o Hindpiri, Kurban Chowk (Mandal), P.O. and P.S. Hindpiri, District- Ranchi. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, A.P.P. ---- 05/ 25.06.2025: The present anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Daily Market Police Station Case No.32 of 2022, registered for alleged offences under Sections 115, 153 (A) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 2. As per the first information report, the allegation revolves around two named accused persons exchanging talks over their mobile phone in order to promote enmity between two different communities. In course of investigation, the name of the petitioner transpired to be involved in the planning for attack on the people of specific community. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case merely because he is friend of the accused named in the FIR. He submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. He submitted that the named accused have already been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 9719 of 2022 and B.A. No. 10083 of 2022 on 12.10.2022 and 22.11.2022 respectively. On these grounds learned counsel prays that the petitioner be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel on behalf of the state vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner was served with the notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C, but he did not appear before the police. He also contended that in course of investigation materials have been collected to show that the petitioner was involved in the crime. 5. In order to appreciate the contentions of the respective parties, I have gone through the available material on record including the case diary. I find that in course of investigation the police has collected CDR of the mobile phone used by the petitioner, as recorded at paragraph 81 of the case diary 2025:JHHC:16822 -: 2 :- and has also collected material to show that the alleged mobile is used by the petitioner, as mentioned at paragraph 123 of the case diary. From the case diary it also appears that the petitioner is not responding to the notices under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in fact he is evading. The allegation is of planning to attack on specific community and to create communal violence. Considering the nature of allegation, I find that this is a case where serious investigation and interrogation is required. 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. 6. This anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03