IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1502 of 2025 ------ Kishun Mandal @ Sukar Mandal @ Kishun Prasad, aged about 54 years, S/o Yugal Mandal @ Yugal Mahto, R/o Village-Dharguli, P.O. + P.S.-Bagodar, Dist.-Giridih .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Nitesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No.02 Dated- 06-03-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Bagodar P.S. Case No.148 of 2024 registered under Sections 366 and 379/34 of the I.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons abducted the wife of the informant by taking remuneration of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that the main allegation is against Bhola Pandey. It is then submitted that petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submit that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to trace out the victim Asha Devi and 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, 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/