Writ petition for anticipatory bail. Court rejected prayer holding allegations of assault causing grievous injuries serious and not suitable for anticipatory bail.
Prayer for grant of anticipatory bail rejected.
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. 157 of 2016
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, A.P.P.
04/08.04.2016 Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State. Petitioners have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Persudih P.S. Case No. 222 of 2015 corresponding to G. R. No. 2715 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is previous enmity between the petitioners and the informant as earlier also a criminal case was instituted against the informant. It has been submitted that a civil suit which was preferred by the informant party was ultimately decided in favour of the petitioners and other in Title Appeal No. 49 of 2012. It has also been submitted that a compromise was also entered into between the informant and the petitioners but it is surprising that even after the said compromise the First Information Report has been lodged. Learned counsel submits that it is an admitted fact that the petitioners are in possession of the land in which dispute had taken place and, therefore, considering the said fact the petitioners deserve to be granted anticipatory bail.
Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P., has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that the petitioners are specifically alleged to have assaulted the informant as well as the son of the informant which has resulted in their suffering injuries.
-2-
It appears from the First Information Report that the petitioner no. 1 had assaulted on the head of the informant with Bhujali whereas the petitioner no. 2 had assaulted his son with a dagger.
The impugned order suggests that the informant had received grievous injuries on his head right side parietal region.
Since the allegation of assault is serious which has led to the grievous injuries having been sustained by the informant, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners which is, accordingly, rejected.
(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Umesh/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners apprehending arrest for offences under Sections 147, 148, 307, 379 IPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shambhu Shahi @ Shambhu Kumar
Subodh Shahi @ Subodh Kumar
State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
