IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1362 of 2025 ------ Arjun Birhor, aged about 32 years Son of Lalu Birhor, Resident of Village-Kurgkheta, P.O.-Jori, P.S.-Basisthnagar, Dist.-Chatra .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 28-02-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Rajpur Case No.15 of 2020 registered under Sections 15, 17, 18 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is an opium trader and the co-accused persons purchased 22 k.g. opium from the petitioner out of which 17/18 k.g. opium was looted by unknown persons and 2.5 k.g. opium was seized by police. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. The co-accused person namely Santosh Kumar Verma @ Santosh Dangi has been granted anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.08.2024 in A.B.A. No.10693 of 2023 and other co-accused persons admitted to regular bail in B.A. No.4905 of 2020 on 27.07.2021. It is then submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-16 of the anticipatory bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there keeping in view opium in commercial quantity has already been seized from the co-accused person; the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS is attracted in this case and in absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence and that there is no likelihood of the petitioner indulging in any offence, if released on bail; the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that 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, as well as 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 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/