Dismissed

Sunny Kumar Alias Ankit Ekka v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Feb 2022A.B.A./246/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail in a criminal case. Despite the petitioner's undertaking to fix defects and readiness to pay victim compensation, the Court held that the case involved serious allegations and that avoiding arrest indicated a need for custodial interrogation, following a prior rejection order.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail is rejected.

Sunny Kumar Alias Ankit Ekka Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 246 of 2022

¶2

Sunny Kumar @ Ankit Ekka … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶3

------

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv N. Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Addl. P.P. ------

¶6

Order No.02 Dated- 07.02.2022

¶7

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after resumption of the Court in physical mode.

¶9

In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

¶10

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Piparwar P.S. Case No.44 of 2018 (G.R. No. 1089 of 2018) registered under sections 147/323/325/307/353/379/414 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 11.10.2018 in A.B.A. No.6333 of 2018 as such, there is no fresh ground but the petitioner is ready to pay some ad interim victim compensation. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that though the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 11.10.2018 in A.B.A. No.6333 of 2018 still, he is avoiding his arrest, therefore, the custodial interrogation of

¶13

the petitioner is required. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶14

Considering the serious nature of allegation and the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the vide order dated 11.10.2018 in A.B.A. No.6333 of 2018.

¶15

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶16

Sonu/Gunjan-

Sunny Kumar Alias Ankit Ekka v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny Kumar Alias Ankit Ekka 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

MD Shakil Ahmad Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Jan Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandan Upadhayay Vs Santosh Upadhyay

Geeta Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nakul Mandal Alias Nakul Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pankaj Mahto Alias Pankaj Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand