This order rejects the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail in an IPC case, holding that sufficient material exists during investigation and noting the petitioner's role as a gang leader.
Prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected unless the petitioner surrenders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 288 of 2013
Chandan Maity @ Maiti
... ... … Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate For the State : Mr. Amitabh, A. P. P.
05/01.05.2013
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 395, 397 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Dhalbhumgarh P.S. Case No. 33 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 306 of 2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the petitioner has filed an application for his anticipatory bail which was dismissed as withdrawn after some argument i.e. A.B.A. No. 894 of 2012 vide order dated 30.04.2012. He has further submitted that petitioner's name has come only on the confessional statement of the co-accused.
Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Amitabh has submitted that earlier the petitioner has filed an application for his anticipatory bail which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.04.2012 passed in A.B.A. No. 894 of 2012. He has further submitted that it has come in the impugned order that the sufficient materials have come against the petitioner in the investigation and he is a leader of the gang. It is also submitted that the petitioner is involved in other cases of similar nature.
Considering the submissions made by both the parties and considering the fact that sufficient materials have come against the petitioner in the investigation further it has come in the impugned order that the petitioner is involved in other cases of similar nature, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
However, if the petitioner surrenders, the trial Court will pass the order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.
( Jaya Roy, J .)
Satayendra
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail ought to be granted to the petitioner apprehending arrest in connection with offences under Sections 395, 397 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code.
Chandan Maity @ Maiti
The State of Jharkhand
Jaya Roy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
