The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's anticipatory bail application (A.B.A. No. 187 of 2021). The court held that the earlier rejection on merit by this Court stood and the grant of bail in a separate case was not a grounds to renew the prayer.
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. 187 of 2021
Samad Ali Sapui ... … petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.N. Jha, A.P.P. -----
02/05.02.2021 The present anticipatory bail application is taken up today through Video conferencing.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chakulia P.S. Case No. 12 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. No. 74 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Ghatsila.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2020 passed in A.B.A. No. 2611 of 2020. The petitioner has filed the present anticipatory bail application primarily due to the reason that he has also been implicated in another case being Chakulia P.S. Case No. 13 of 2018 (G.R. No. 77 of 2018) registered under Sections 414/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code in which he has subsequently been granted anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.10.2020 passed in A.B.A. No. 3844 of 2020. Since the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail in the said case, he has renewed his prayer for anticipatory bail by filing the present anticipatory bail application.
Mr. V.N. Jha, the learned A.P.P. submits that since the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application has already been rejected earlier on merit by this Court, the present one is fully misconceived and not maintainable. If the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court in a separate criminal case, the same cannot be a reason for renewing his prayer for anticipatory bail.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manish
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in the present application considering the earlier rejection in a similar matter and grant in a separate case.
Whether the petitioner's apprehension of arrest justifies enlarging him on bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Samad Ali Sapui
The State of Jharkhand
RAJESH SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
