IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 440 of 2025 ------ Mustafa Ansari @ Gulam Mustafa, S/o Abdul Samad, Aged about 44 years, R/o Narki, P.O. –Narki Kala, P.S. – Bishnugarh, Dist-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 24.01.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Bishnugarh P.S. Case No.188 of 2024 registered under sections 317(5)/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and under Section 30 of the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is habitually involved in illegal mining of coal and he is also involved in nine other cases of similar nature, the details of which have been mentioned in the rejection order of the anticipatory bail petition, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribagh in A.B.P. No. 1933 of 2024 dated 30.11.2024. It is next submitted that out of the nine cases, the petitioner has been acquitted in five cases and in four cases, the petitioner has been admitted to bail. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion. It is then submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is habitually involved in illegal mining of coal, his custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case to find out the detailed network of his organized illegal mining and there is every chance of the petitioner indulging in similar offence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case to find out the detailed network of his organized illegal mining and the chance of the petitioner indulging in similar offence, if released on bail, as also the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-