IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1387 of 2025 ------ Kanti Kumari, aged about 29 years, wife of Gandauri Ganjhu, Resident of Village –Devgarh, ango, P.O. –Gossaibalia, P.S. Barkagaon, District –Hazaribag (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Dharmendra Kr. Malityar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 03.03.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Budmu P.S. Case No.51 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 308(2)/308(4)/317(5)/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 25(1-A)/25(1-B)/26/35 of the Arms Act and under Section 17 of the CLA Act. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being member of an extremist organization namely TPC in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons was involved in commission of extortion, abductions of persons for ransom in an organized manner running the extortion network, by collecting extortion from owners of Balu Ghat, contractors, managers of various companies and the owners of brick-kiln and crushers. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case. 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 a Coordinate Bench has rejected the prayer for regular bail of the co- accused –Prakash Ganjhu vide order dated 06.01.2025, in B.A. No. 10936 of 2024. It is next submitted that in view of the serious nature of allegation of organizing the racket in the name of extremist organization, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the to find out the details of the organization. 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 her custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, 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-