IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 2062 of 2025 1. Brahamdev Ganjhu, aged about 44 years, son of Rati Ganjhu, 2. Arvind Ganjhu @ Arvind Kumar Bhogta aged about 28 years, son of Garaj Ganjhu @ Sarj Ganjhu Both resident of village Icha Ahar, P.O.-Shivrajpur, P.S. Lawalong, District -Chatra. … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … opp. party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar , Adv. Mr. Ramesh Kumar , Adv. For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha , Spl. PP 02 / 28.03.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 276 of 2023 registered under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 20 (b), 22 of NDPS Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were involved in transportation and sale of Ganja and 1.04 kg of Ganja has been recovered from the co- accused, who has disclosed that the petitioner fled away from the place of occurrence on seeing the police. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and except the confessional statement of the co- accused, there is no material in the record to implicate the petitioner in this case. 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 Special. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that due to recovery of huge amount of Ganja, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during investigation of the case to find out the chain of supply of Ganja. 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/-