IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.549 of 2025 ------ Krishna Prakash Singh s/o Late Chandrika Singh, aged about 62 years R/o Plot No.300, Co-operative Colony, B.S. City P.O. & P.S.- B.S. City, District-Bokaro. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav Abhishekh, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl.P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 27/01/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No.120 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.382 of 2023 registered under Section 406, 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the public servant entrusted with the food grains under the Public Distribution System has committed criminal breach of trust of the entrusted property of several thousand sacks of rice and wheat. It is submitted that because of miscounting of the stock, the FIR has been lodged and the petitioner is still facing the departmental proceeding wherein subsequently it was found that as per the register excess amount of foodgrains were found in the godown. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Spl. 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 facts that the petitioner being a public servant has committed criminal breach of trust by committing dishonest misappropriation of thousands of sacks of wheat and rice, hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case for recovery of the misappropriated property. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of the allegation against the petitioner as well as the requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioner during the investigation of the case, this court is not inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/