IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1775 of 2025 ------ Niraj Kumar Paswan @ Rahul, aged about 19 years, Son of Dukhan Manji, Resident of Basana, P.O. –Basana, P.S. – Bishrampur, District –Palamau, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjit Kr. Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 19.03.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Town P.S. Case No.376 of 2024 corresponding to N.D.P.S. Case No. 25 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20 (b) (ii) and 20 (b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in sale and purchase of Ganja and 3.390 KG of Ganja was recovered from the co-accused person and the co-accused person disclosed that the seized Ganja belonged to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in para- 11 of the instant anticipatory bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of being owner of the Ganja which was seized from the co-accused person; hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the chain of supply of Ganja. 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 his custodial interrogation during 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-