2025:JHHC:18226 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1508 of 2025 ---- Rajesh Yadav, S/o Lurka Mahto, R/o Near Rinpas, P.O. & P.S. Kanke, District: Ranchi. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner: Mr. Arpit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Sushma Aind, A.P.P. ---- 03/ 03.07.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Kanke P.S. Case No. 288 of 2024, registered for offences alleged under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 3. As per the First Information Report, it has been alleged by the informant that on 04.10.2024 he received a secret information that a suspect carrying arms was heading towards Kanke Law College on a Bullet motorcycle. On the information, a checkpoint was set up near college gate. The suspect on seeing the checkpoint tried to flee but was apprehended. A country made pistol and live cartridges were found from his possession. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the First Information Report. There is no recovery of any arms from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is neither the owner of the bullet motorcycle nor the arms seized. His name came only on the confessional statement of co-accused. 5. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner used to supply firearms to the other co-accused. The petitioner’s involvement in this case has transpired from the confessional statement of the apprehended accused as also from the witness examined in course of investigation. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the records, I find that there is serious allegation against the petitioner of supplying firearms. From the impugned order, I find that it has been recorded 2025:JHHC:18226 -: 2 :- by the Court that the involvement of the petitioner in supply of firearms is corroborated by the statement of Ram Prasad Baitha, an independent witness, who was examined by the police in course of investigation. Keeping in view that the investigation is still going on and there is necessity of custodial interrogation of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. 7. This anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03