IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 1800 of 2025 Raj Kumar Rana, Son of Mahabir Rana, aged about- 46 years, resident of village- Mohanpur, P.O.- Udnabad, P.S.- Giridih(M), District- Giridih. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … opp. party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha , Adv. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey , Addl.. PP 02 / 24.03.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Giridih (M) P.S. Case No. 317 of 2024, registered under Sections 292, 274, 275 of BNS, Section 47(a) of Excise Act and under sections 20/22 of NDPS Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in illegal sale and storage of Ganja and illicit liquor. It is also alleged that 14.67 kg of Ganja was recovered from the house and shop of the petitioner and 94 pieces of chillum were also recovered from the house of the petitioner besides 43 litre of foreign liquor of different brands and Rs. 84,655/- was also recovered. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner is a small shop keeper and he has no concern with the seized materials. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as mentioned in paragraph 15 of the anticipatory bail application. 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 keeping in view of the recovery of the huge amount of narcotic drug and illicit liquor, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during investigation of the case to find out the chain of supply of narcotic drug and illicit liquor. 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/-