IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1754 of 2025 ------ Md. Ainul Ansari, son of Tajuddin Miyan, aged about 37 years, resident of Village-Near Imli Tree, Chhawania, Sirma, P.O., P.S.-Barkagaon, Dist.-Hazaribagh. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanat Kr. Jha, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 21.03.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Khelari P.S. Case No.3 of 2011 (G.R. No. 228 of 2011) registered for the offences punishable under sections 392/411 of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in robbery of mobile handset and motorcycle. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and though the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and attachment order under Section 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner but the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been quashed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 290 of 2016 on 15.02.2017. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused persons. 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 the petitioner is absconding and is not cooperating with the investigation of the case and even though the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been quashed on 15.02.2017 but he has managed to remain at large by absconding, for over eight years. It is next submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the recovery of the looted articles. 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 and his conduct of not cooperating with the investigation of the case and is absconding, 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-