The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi heard a petition for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faced serious charges including attempted murder, arson, and robbery. The court declined the bail application due to the grave nature of the allegations.
Prayer for 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. 3272 of 2017
Bajrang Pahan .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opp. Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. J.S. Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate ------
04/17.07.2017 Apprehending his arrest the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Kanke P.S. Case No.39 of 2017 (G.R. No.1622 of 2017) registered under Sections 323 /341 /324 /307 /379 /392/ 427/ 435/ 436/ 386/387/ 447/ 120B/ 448/ 452 /34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Addl. P.P. for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with coaccused persons after forming an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, in furtherance of the common intention of assembly, assaulted the informant with deadly weapons and left him thinking that he is dead. Thereafter, they set fire to the machinery of the company namely Hindkush Construction Private Limited, Manatu. After that they looted Rs.6,00,000/- cash kept in one of the room of the company and locked the three of the employees of the said company in the room from outside and set the room on fire. The three employees locked in the room sustained burn injuries and somehow managed to escape from there by breaking the Tin roof of the room. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. The informant has falsely implicated the petitioner to grab his property. The petitioner is a poor person and be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of attempting to murder the informant and other three employees of the company besides looting Rs.6,00,000/- of cash. It is further
submitted that the petitioner committed the offence for extorting booty from the company. Hence, the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the submissions of counsels and the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view the serious nature of direct allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Gunjan/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner facing charges of attempted murder, arson, robbery, and conspiracies.
Bajrang Pahan
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
