IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 1918 of 2025 1. Sk. Methuyu @ SK. Methu @ Badruddin Ansari, aged about 58 years, Son of Shekh Masum Ali, Resident of Village Dalki, P.O Panduda, P.S Dolki, District East Singhbhum. 2. Utpal Das, aged about 47 years, Son of Dhiren Das, REsident of Village Chaluniya, P.O Kendadangri, P.S Chakulia, District East Singhbhum … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … opp. party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh , Adv. For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi , Addl.. PP 02 / 25.03.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Dhalbhumgarh P.S. Case No. 54 of 2024 registered under Sections 5, 12 of Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 and under section 11 of Animal Cruelty Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners are habitually involved in smuggling bovine animals and while 72 bovine animals were transported for their illegal slaughter, the same was recovered by police. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and petitioners have been implicated in this case on the basis of the information proved by apprehended persons. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent, as mentioned in paragraph 12 of the anticipatory bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case hence, the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that keeping in view of serious allegation against the petitioners of habitually involved in illegal slaughter of bovine animals and huge number of bovine animals were seized in connection with the case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during investigation of the case to find out the chain of supply of bovine animals for their illegal slaughter. It is therefore submitted that the petitioners ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious allegations against the petitioners and the requirement of their custodial interrogation during investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-