In a bail application regarding a dacoity charge under IPC Sections 395/411, the High Court of Jharkhand rejected the plea. The court found the petitioner's case analogous to another co-accused who was arrested while fleeing the crime scene, rejecting bail prayers for both.
Prayer for bail was rejected and the application was 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 B.A. No. 3269 of 2018
----
Randhir Yadav
… Petitioner
-versus-
The State of Jharkhand
… Opposite Party
----
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Verma, A.P.P.
----
5/ 05.12.2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner is an accused for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Sections 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Madhupur Police Station Case No.252 of 2017 (G.R. No.749 of 2017) corresponding to Sessions Trial No.02 of 2018, pending in the Court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar.
It is alleged that the petitioner and others have committed dacoity in the house of the informant and taken away cash, jewellery and other articles.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and it is alleged that two motorcycles, which were subject matter of dacoity were recovered from the house of the petitioner, but, surprisingly, the petitioner’s house is far away and petitioner was arrested immediately. He relies on the order passed in B.A. No. 1416 of 2018 wherein co-accused Ashok Yadav has been granted bail by this Court.
Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the police, after receipt of information of dacoity, immediately chased the miscreants and this petitioner and others were seen fleeing in a scorpio vehicle, which was intercepted and this petitioner and others were apprehended. He submits that Ashok Yadav, who has been granted bail by this Court, was not arrested along with other accused persons while they were fleeing, but, Kunal Yadav was arrested. He submits that the case of the petitioner stands similar to that of Kunal Kumar @ Kunal Yadav @ Kunal Kumar Yadav, whose prayer for bail has been rejected by this Court in B.A. No.1812 of 2018.
After going through the records, I find force in the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. Case of the petitioner
-: 2 :-
is same as that of Kunal Yadav, who was also arrested while they were fleeing after committing dacoity. Thus, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner, namely, Randhir Yadav, in connection with Madhupur Police Station Case No.252 of 2017 (G.R. No.749 of 2017) corresponding to Sessions Trial No.02 of 2018, pending in the Court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, is
hereby rejected.
This application stands dismissed.
( Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-03
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner, an accused in a dacoity case, who was apprehended fleeing the scene along with others.
Whether the petitioner's situation is analogous to a co-accused already granted bail and justifies release.
Randhir Yadav
The State of Jharkhand
Ananda Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
