IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.471 of 2025 ------ Md. Imran, aged about 25 years, son of Md. Imtiyaz, resident of Hill View Area, M.P. Road, Jugsalai, P.O. and P.S. Jugsalai, Town Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-24-01-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Jugsalai P.S. Case No.38 of 2019 instituted under Sections 147/148/149/188/323/325/307/332/ 333/353/295(A)/427/504/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 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 the member of an unlawful assembly, in prosecution of common object of the assembly, in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons being armed with deadly weapons and in violation of the prohibitory orders imposed, raised objectionable slogans against the police administration and thereafter, entered into the house of the other community, damaged the household articles, attacked the public servants, police officers by deterring them from discharging their duties and attempted to murder them by assaulting them by which several police officers sustained injuries and the occurrence took place on polling day of Parliamentary Election of 2019. It is submitted that there is also allegation against the petitioner of indulging in deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage the religious feelings of a class of citizens of India by insulting their religion and religious beliefs. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is also submitted that petitioner was not the member of that mob. Drawing attention of this court towards para-13 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is further submitted that the co- accused persons, with similar allegations, have already been given the privileges of anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 20.09.2024 passed in A.B.A. No.6035 of 2024 and 22.11.2024 passed in A.B.A. No.6818 of 2024. It is lastly 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 Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, there is requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioner during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case to recover the weapons of offence. It is next submitted that the petitioner is a threat to law and order situation at the locality. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought to not 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, 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/