In a petition for anticipatory bail regarding an assault and arms charge, the Court rejected the prayer due to the serious nature of allegations and the petitioners' criminal antecedents involving assault, theft, and extortion.
The prayer for anticipatory bail is 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.3516 of 2017
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Addl.P.P.
04/19.07.2017 Apprehending their arrest in connection with Balidih P.S. Case No.142 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.1659 of 2016 instituted under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 427/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is that they assaulted the informant with iron rod on his forehead with an intention to murder him by which the informant sustained injury. They also fired shots. It is further submitted that the informant was the aggressor of the said occurrence and he had lodged Balidih P.S. Case No.141 of 2016 in respect of the occurrence. It is lastly submitted that all the allegations against the petitioners are false. Hence, they may be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are of serious nature. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 namely Mr. Arif is involved in three other cases of assault and theft, petitioner No.2 namely Chhotan Khan @ Ashgar is also involved in the case of assault and extortion, petitioner No.3 namely Md. Aslam Khan @ Aslam Khan is also involved in five different cases of assault, theft, extortion, outraging the modesty of women, cheating and petitioner No.4 namely Imtiyaj Khan is also involved in a case for causing hurt and extortion. Hence, they ought not be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances and the criminal antecedent of the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant the privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioners is rejected.
Animesh
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners accused of assault and crimes under the Arms Act considering their criminal antecedents.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Md. Arif
Chhotan Khan @ Ashgar
Md. Aslam Khan @ Aslam Khan
Imtiyaj Khan
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
