IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.720 of 2025 ------ Tanish Topno, aged about 40 years, S/O- Salim Topno, Resident of Village- Khalari, P.O. & P.S.- Gidhour, District- Chatra. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalan Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. 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 Katkamsandi P.S. Case No.130 of 2024 registered under Sections 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 21 (b), 25, 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in illegal transportation and sale of Brown Sugar (Heroin). It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused person from whom 25 gm of Brown Sugar (Heroin) has been recovered. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-06 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 privilege 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 in view of serious allegation against the petitioner that he was the kingpin of the racket of Brown Sugar (Heroin), the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the 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 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/