[2025:JHHC:11202] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A No.2302 of 2025 ------ Amit Kumar, aged about 32 years, son of Ruplal Paswan, resident of Singhani, P.O. & P.S.-Singhani, Dist.-Hazaribagh .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 11-04-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Hazaribagh (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.0007 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 292, 296, 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 61(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, read with Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Trafficking Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is one of the owners of the hotel and he was involved in immoral trafficking by harboring the prostitutes and running a brothel. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that he is a witness to the agreement entered into by co-accused Babita Devi. It is further submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of statement of the manager of the hotel. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that since there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of running a brothel in the name of a resort, hence his custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case to find out the chain of supply of prostitutes. 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 petitioners and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, to find out the details of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the above named petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the above named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Rohit/