IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.8017 of 2024 ------ 1. Dhaneshar Noniya 2. Arjun Noniya .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Akhouri Sankalp, Advocate Mr. Subhneet Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.03 Dated- 07-01-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Mango P.S. Case No.181 of 2021 registered under Section 379, 411, 413, 414 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were the members of mobile snatching gang and they had hired a rented house in the garb of vegetable selling business but it was used for dumping snatched mobile phones. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the petitioners have been implicated in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused persons. It is also submitted that one of the petitioners is involved in a case involving the offences punishable under N.D.P.S. Act. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners that they are the members of a gang involved in snatching of mobile phones and selling the mobile phones in an organized manner, their custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the network of mobile snatchers, hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required to find out the details of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners, their criminal antecedent as well as the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the abovenamed petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/