The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioners' application for anticipatory bail in a case involving charges of affray, assault, and damaging a police vehicle. The court found that specific allegations in the FIR justified the apprehension of arrest.
Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected and dismissed.
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. 3539 of 2015
Order No. 02 Dated 7th December , 2015
Heard Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Abhinesh Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
Petitioners have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Jadugora P.S. Case No. 14 of 2013 (G.R. No. 73 of 2013) registered for the offences punishable u/s 147, 341, 342, 323, 353, 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 is the owner whereas the petitioner No. 2 is the driver of the Scorpio vehicle which was said to have dashed a police vehicle. It has further been submitted that Section 353 I.P.C. is not made out and in fact none of the security personnel of U.C.I.L., Jadugora, who had come to the place of occurrence, had been examined. It has also been submitted that there is no damage report of the police vehicle in question to substantiate the allegation made in the F.I.R.
Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and supported the factum of occurrence. It has also been submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of dashing the police vehicle and making an attempt to take away their arms.
Since in the F.I.R., specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioners of damaging the police vehicle, instigating the mob and trying to take away the arms of the police personnel, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
MK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners apprehending arrest in connection with offences punishable under sections 147, 341, 342, 323, 353, 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
Whether the specific allegations of damaging a police vehicle and attempting to take away arms warrant rejection of anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Barun Kumar See
Shibraj Soren
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
