IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.763 of 2025 ------ Shubham Kumar Tiwary @ Subham Tiwari @ Ankit Kr. Tiwari, aged about 22 years, son of Brijesh Kumar Tiwary, resident of Nand Nagar, Bhuiyandih, P.O. Agrico, P.S. Sidhgora, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kr. Karmakar, 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 Sidhgora P.S. Case No.138 of 2024 registered under Sections 457, 380 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in lurking house trespass and commission of theft and assisted in concealment of stolen property. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. yet he has been implicated in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of the co- accused. It is next submitted that the petitioner is involved in three other cases out of which he has already been acquitted in one of the cases. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a labour. 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 custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case for recovery of the stolen property and in view of the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if given the privileges of anticipatory bail. 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/