IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1983 of 2025 ------ Mantu Kumar @ Mantu Kumar Mehta, aged about 26 years, son of Krishna Mehta, resident of village-Nawadih, P.O. -Behradih, P.S.- Domchanch, District-Koderma. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Snehlika Bhagat, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 26/03/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No.70 of 2024 registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed theft of pickup van loaded with 3 tons of mica from the premises of Koderma Forest Office after the same was seized by the forest officials in connection with Offence Report No.2589 of 2024. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of secret information and petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. It is next submitted as per the information provided by the DTO, petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing 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 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner has not replied to the notice issued under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. nor appeared before the Investigating Officer of the case. It is next submitted that the stolen pickup van loaded with mica has not yet been recovered, hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case in order to find out the details of the case and for recovery of the stolen property. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, 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.) Abhiraj/