IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1929 of 2025 ------ Amit Kumar @ Amit Prasad, aged about 35 years, Sex- Male, Son of Shri Bijay Prasad, Resident of Nagar, P.O:- Chandwa, P.S.: Chandwa & District- Latehar (Jharkhand), Adhaar No.8497 7970 2187 .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi, Advocate For the State : Ms. Mohua Palit, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 25-03-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Chandwa P.S. Case No.82 of 2024 registered under Sections 379, 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 (1-B) (a)/26/35 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in cutting of electric supply wire supporting towers, with the help of instruments and was having fire- arms but on seeing the police party, he fled away. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. yet his name has cropped up in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused persons. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that considering the huge amount of recovery of fire-arms and the organized manner of committing theft of electric supply wire supporting towers by using Oxygen gas cylinders and other sophisticated equipments, there is requirement of the custodial interrogation of the petitioner to find out the modus operandi and the organized gang of criminals and recovery of more firearms. It is then submitted that the petitioner is a threat to the law and order situation in the locality, hence the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges 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 of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/