Dismissed

Robert Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Sept 2019A.B.A./3583/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi rejected an application for anticipatory bail filed by six petitioners. Despite completed investigation and issuance of a warrant, the Court held that the serious allegations of arson and the necessity of custodial interrogation made this an inappropriate case for granting bail.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners was rejected.

Robert Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B. A. No. 3583 of 2019

¶3

Robert Gupta @ Robot Gupta

¶4

Sudhir Swrankar @ Sudhir Swarankar @ Sudhir Prasad

¶5

Gyan Prakash @ Gyan Prakash @ Gyan Prakash Gupta

¶6

Binu Kumar @ Binu Jaiswal

¶7

Amit Kumar @ Amit Gupta

¶8

Ashok Prasad @ Ashok @ Alok Gupta

¶9

… Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶12

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶13

For the Petitioners : Mr. Binod Singh, Adv. For the State : Addl. P.P.

¶14

04 / 11.09.19 Heard the parties.

¶15

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 63 of 2013 (G.R. No. 943 of 2013 ) registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 151, 153A, 337, 341, 427, 436 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners have already been rejected thrice by this court and special leave to appeal (Criminal) No. 8937 of 2014 has also been dismissed. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the investigation has been completed in this case and the charge sheet has been submitted in this case on 31.03.2019 and consequent upon the cognizance for the offence punishable under sections 147/148/149/151/153A/337/341/427/436/307 IPC has been taken against the petitioners vide order dated 15.04.2019 and warrant of arrest has already been issued. It is next submitted that some of the co-accused has already been given the privilege of anticipatory bail, hence, the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶17

The learned Addl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that as the

¶18

petitioners are eluding their arrest and not cooperating with the investigation of the case even though their custodial interrogation is necessary, hence, keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against them , the petitioners ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶19

Considering the serious allegations against the petitioners setting the shops of the other community on fire as well as requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.

¶20

( ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)

¶21

Smita/-

Robert Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Robert Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt B Bharti Devi Alias Bharti Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Union of India through Public Prosecutor Spe CBI Dhanbad Vs Sri Promod Kumar Singh

Basudev Das Alias Basudeo Ravidas Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shashi Prakash Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sunny Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravinder Chaurasia Alias Ravinder Prasad Vs the Union of India through CBI