IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.719 of 2025 ------ Rohit Singh @ Rohit Kumar Singh, S/o- Nageshwar Singh @ N.D. Singh, Age- 31 Years, R/o- Krishna Nagar, Jojobera, P.O. + P.S.- Rahargora, Dist- East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. V. S. Sahay, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 04-02-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Telco P.S. Case No.96 of 2024 registered under Sections 109, 324 (5), 3 (5), 111 (5), 24a of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27, 25 (1-b), a/26 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, attempted to murder Suraj Yadav by firing upon him causing him gun-shot injuries. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner is a driver by profession. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-08 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. 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 and submits that the petitioner is having three criminal antecedents and in view of serious allegation against the petitioner, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case for recovery of the fire-arms and other details of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, his criminal antecedent as well as 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 above-named petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/