IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1484 of 2025 ------ Tanweer Jawed @ Hina @ Tanweer @ Md. Tanweer Jawed, aged about 24 years, son of Md. Jawed Khan, resident of House No.54, Old Purliya Road, Cross Road No.17, Zakir Nagar, P.O. & P.S.-Azad Nagar (Mango), Dist.-Jamshedpur, (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No.02 Dated- 05.03.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. Case No.168 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 329(3)/191(2)/191(3)190/109 of the B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 27 of Arms Act. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was member of unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of the assembly attempted to murder the informant by firing upon him. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been made after the petitioner filed the anticipatory bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation of the case and is absconding and even the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued, still he has not complied the same. It is next submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case and for recovery of the firearm. 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 custodial interrogation of the petitioner during the investigation of the case as well as the petitioner is absconding and is not cooperating with 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 petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-