In a bail matter under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, and 302 IPC, the Jharkhand High Court rejected the petitioners' application for anticipatory bail due to the serious nature of the allegations requiring custodial interrogation.
Rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail.
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.1231 of 2022
------
.... .... …. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Shailendra Jit, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, Addl.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Ayub Ansari, Adv.
Order No.02 Dated- 24.02.2022
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after resumption of the court in physical mode.
In view of personal undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.
Apprehending their arrest in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No. 145 of 2021 instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and later on section 302 of I.P.C. was added, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners being member of unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, being armed with deadly weapon committed murder of the deceased-Bhola Mandal and attempted to murder the informant party. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner no.1 is female and there is land dispute between the parties and the petitioners have no intention to kill anybody. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State being assisted by learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that the petitioners being member of unlawful assembly committed murder of the deceased namely Bhola Mandal, hence the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case for recovery of the weapon of offence and also to find out the specific details of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of the allegation against the petitioners and the 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 petitioners be given privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioners is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Pappu/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners arrested under charges of murder and attempted murder.
Malti Devi
Kishor Mandal
Monu Kumar Mandal
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
