IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 1885 of 2025 Md. Arif Khan, aged about 44 Years S/O Rauf Khan R/O Village- Barkatha P.O. & P.S.-Barkatha District- Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … opp. party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. K.S. Nanda , Adv. For the State : Ms. Bandan Sinha , Addl.. PP 02 / 25.03.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Itkhori P.S. Case No. 201 of 2020 registered under Sections 11 of Prevention of Animal to Cruelty Act, and under Section 12(i) (ii) of Jharkhand Bovine Animal (Prevention of Slaughter) Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for anticipatory bail and earlier, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was withdrawn with a liberty vide order dated 27.02.2024 in ABA 10861 of 2023 with liberty to move before the trial court by filing appropriate petition for regular bail but without compliance of the said order, the petitioner has against come up for anticipatory bail application in little less than one year thereafter. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner is the owner-cum-driver of the seized truck which was involved in transportation of bovine animals for their slaughter illegally and in the said truck, 38 calves were found loaded, out of whom, 2 calves were found dead. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has nothing to do with the bovine animals loaded in the truck. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that after earlier withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner, the petitioner is absconding and he is not cooperating with the investigating of the case hence, in view of serious allegation against the petitioner, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during investigation of the case to find out the details of the network of procurement and transport of bovine animals for their illegal slaughter. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-