IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1380 of 2025 ------ Arshad Alam @ Babla, aged about 60 years, Son of Md. Gulam Rasul, Resident of 26, Mahavir-Shtan Road, Naya Bazar, Dhanbad, P.O.-Dhanbad, P.S.-Bankmore, Dist.-Dhanbad, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhas Chandra Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, Addl. P.P. For the victim : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate Ms. Binita Sahay, Advocate ------ Order No.02 Dated- 03-03-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Bankmore P.S. Case No.203 of 2024 registered under Sections 25(1-B) (a) and 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner attempted to fire upon the alleged victim Salim Khan from his country-made pistol but the pistol did not fire; and thereafter when the victim brought out his fire-arm, there was a scuffle between them and petitioner fired upon the victim Salim Khan and the bullet hit the finger of the right hand of the victim. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the instant case is a counter-blast to Bankmore P.S. Case No.198 of 2024. It is further submitted that petitioner is victim of the said Bankmore P.S. Case No.198 of 2024 and he sustained gunshot injuries in his back. It is next submitted that another false case was lodged against the petitioner and his family members vide Bankmore P.S. case No.122 of 2021 in which case, the petitioner was acquitted. It is further submitted that petitioner was admitted at Vellore for his better treatment. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State being assisted by the learned counsel for the victim- Salim Khan vehemently oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submit that the petitioner is a notorious criminal of the locality and was also involved in the murder of the father of a gangster. It is next submitted that, in view of the criminal antecedent of the petitioner as well as recovery of an unlicensed firearm from his house, 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 privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case as well as the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Rohit/