The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail in a case involving looting and destruction by explosion, deeming the direct allegations of a serious nature as a ground for denial.
The prayer for anticipatory bail was 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. 3662 of 2017
Laxman Ganjhu @ Kohram Jee … ... Petitioner Versus
The State of Jharkhand … ... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner: Mr. J.S. Singh, Advocate For the State : Addl. P.P. -----
3/ 17.07.2017 Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 41 of 2012 (G.R. No. 194 of 2012) registered under Sections 147,148,149,427, 436, 379 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3/ 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 17(i)(ii) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he is a member of the banned organization namely, T.P.C. The petitioner along with about 95 extremists entered into the house of the informant, who is the Mukhiya of Village Kosmahi, and looted away the ornaments, utensils and other articles including cash. They also destroyed the house of the informant by explosion. It is submitted that no specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner. Neither the petitioner was arrested at the spot nor any recovery was made from his possession. The petitioner is not connected with any extremist group. Therefore, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of having looted the ornaments, utensils and other articles including cash from the house of the informant and also destroyed his house by explosion and hence the petitioner does not deserve to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the submissions of the parties and the fact, as discussed above, and in view of the direct allegation against the petitioner of serious nature, I am not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
AKT
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail given the direct allegations of looting and destruction by explosion.
Whether the nature of the accused involvement in the banned organization warrants granting anticipatory bail.
8 provisions across 3 enactments
Laxman Ganjhu @ Kohram Jee
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
