[ 2026:JHHC:20654] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3763 of 2026 Sanup Gope, aged about 38 years, son of Mihir Chandra resident Gope, of Govindpur Railway Crossing, Mandir, Kali P.O. Govindpur, P.S. Govindpur, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Karmakar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P. ------ 05/ 13.07.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No. 219 of 2023, registered for the offence under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1- A)/25/26 of Arms Act, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of the apprehended co-accused. He next submits that the allegations are made of making preparation for committing dacoity, but the recovery of arms has been made from the apprehended co-accused. He then submits that the other co-accused has already been provided the privilege of anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 1253 of 2026 by this court. On this ground, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioner. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the [ 2026:JHHC:20654] -2- prayer and submits that the petitioner is having three criminal antecedents. On this ground, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. There is no doubt that the name of the petitioner has come on the basis of confessional statement, however, allegations are there that this petitioner is also the accomplice of the apprehended co- accused and further allegations are there of making preparation for committing dacoity. It has come in the order of the learned Sessions Judge that in paras-46 and 50 of the case diary, the case was found to be true and further the petitioner is not co-operating in the investigation, that has come in para-55 of the case diary and further the petitioner is having three criminal antecedents. 6. So far as providing the privilege of anticipatory bail to the other co-accused in the aforementioned A.B.A. is concerned, the said petitioner is having one criminal antecedent that too under Section 138 of the NI Act, as such, the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of the co-accused, who has been provided the privilege of anticipatory bail. 7. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-13.07.2026 Amitesh/-