IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.499 of 2025 ------ Sudarshan Singh, aged about 54 years, S/o Ramdeo Singh, residents of Village- Puknapur, PO & PS- Daudnagar, District- Aurngabad, Bihar. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-28-01-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No.67 of 2022 instituted under Sections 20(b)(ii) & 20(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in illegal trade of Ganja and 25.960 KG of Ganja has been recovered from the co-accused person- who has named the petitioner. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner is a teacher in his own school. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-16 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is further 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 privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State draws attention of this Court to Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and submits that there is no material in the record to suggest that the petitioner is not involved in the case and that he has not indulged in any offence while on bail. It is next submitted that there is requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioner during the pendency of the case to find out the details of the case as well as business, transportation and sale of Ganja. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case as well as in the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner has not committed any offence and was not involved in any case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/