This order rejects the petitioners' prayer for anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged disturbances and offenses against religion, citing their active participation despite vague specific allegations in the FIR.
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. 5317 of 2018
…… Petitioners
Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P
05/11/01/2019 Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Rajesh Kumar and learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP.
Petitioners have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Daru P.S. Case No. 42 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 889 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 153-A/295-A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been named in the F.I.R. without specifying any act of allegation against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that altogether 15 persons are named in the F.I.R. along with 500 unknown persons, as such the petitioners named above may be enlarged on Anticipatory Bail.
Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. along with 13 other named accused persons and 500 unknown persons who have disturbed the religious belief of the people which is punishable under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code and the case is also under section 353 IPC and as such, the petitioners do not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Considering that these two petitioners along with 13 others have been named in the F.I.R. along with 500 unknown accused persons and these two petitioners have taken active part, as such, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to these petitioners.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner named above is hereby rejected.
( Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Pallavi/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners named in FIR involving affray and offenses against religion.
Whether the involvement of 500 unknown persons and lack of specific allegations warrant enlargement on bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mantu Razak @ Mantu Rajak
Rohit Kumar
The State of Jharkhand
Kailash Prasad Deo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
