IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 61 of 2025 ------ Mahendra Ravidas, aged about 35 years, son of Tetar Ravidas, resident of Village-Toppa Harizan Tola, P.O.-Topa, P.S.-Mandu, Dist.-Ramgarh … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Abdul Wahab, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanat Kr. Jha, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 17.01.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Hazaribagh Muffasil P.S. Case No.291 of 2023 registered under sections 399/402 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of Arms Act. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with the co-accused persons was making preparation of committing dacoity and on seeing the police personnel, the petitioner fled away. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner is also involved in 31 other cases including some cases of similar nature. It is next submitted that the petitioner has sustained serious injury in an accident subsequent to the occurrence. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of other co-accused persons and also for recovery of arms of which the petitioner was in possession of. It is next submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that keeping in view the criminal antecedent of the petitioner of being involved in 31 other cases, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding if released on bail. 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 custodial interrogation of the petitioner during the investigation of the case as well as the chance of the petitioner absconding if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-