IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.7961 of 2024 ------ Shankar Kumar @ Shankar Kumar Singh .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Sushma Aind, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.03 Dated- 06-01-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Hunterganj P.S. Case No.91 of 2024 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 387, 436, 427, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 17 (i)(ii) of Criminal Law Amendment Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the member of the T.P.C. Organization indulged in setting fire to the tractor for extorting levy amount. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that though the petitioner is not named in the FIR yet he has been implicated in this case only on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused Priyanshu Kumar. Drawing attention of this Court towards para- 15 of the instant anticipatory bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner 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 petitioner of being involved in organized crime of T.P.C. Organization, his custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case to find out the detailed activities of the said organization involved in extortion of levy in an organized manner. 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 of being involved in extortion of levy in organized manner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/