Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under POCSO and IPC alleging meritless rejection of previous application and quashing of arrest warrant. Court rejected petition, holding technical quashing of process insufficient to reconsider prior merit-based rejection.
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.5827 of 2021
------
Mihir Pandey .... .... …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankur Anand, Advocate For the State : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, Addl.P.P
Order No.02 Dated- 13.09.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of personal undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No.223 of 2020 corresponding to Spl. POCSO Case No.05 of 2021 registered under Sections 376, 323, 341, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.04.2021 passed in A.B.A. No.1765 of 2021 and the only fresh ground is that the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. which was earlier issued, has since been quashed. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Considering the fact that since the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner has already been rejected on merit, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer for anticipatory bail as the quashing of order by which process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. has been issued on technical ground, is not a sufficient ground to reconsider the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner. Accordingly, this petition, being without any merit, is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Animesh/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether quashing of a Section 82 Cr.P.C. process on technical grounds constitutes sufficient ground to reconsider a prior rejection of anticipatory bail application on merit?
Mihir Pandey
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
