IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 7243 of 2024 Amit Tiwari, aged about 40 years, son of Ram Murat Tiwari, resident of Village Chechariya, P.O. Shivpur, P.S. Kandi, District Garhwa (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … opp. party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey , Adv. For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha , Addl.. PP 02 / 24.03.2025 I.A. No. 3524 of 2025 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer for early hearing of the instant anticipatory bail application. Since, the hearing of instant anticipatory bail application is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of being infructuous. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) ABA No. 7243 of 2024 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Ramana P.S. Case No. 106 of 2024 registered under Sections 20 (b) (ii) (b) of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is involved in selling, transportation and procurement of Ganja. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has been implicated in this case on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused persons, from whom 1.481 kg of ganga has been recovered. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as mentioned in paragraph 11 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 Addl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that in view of serious allegation against the petitioner of being involved in procurement and sale of huge amount of Ganja, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during investigation of the case to find out the chain of procurement and supply of Ganja. 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/-