The High Court of Jharkhand denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a kidnapping and extortion case involving serious allegations of active involvement in abduction and ransom demand, citing the need for custodial interrogation and criminal antecedents as reasons to reject the prayer.
Prayer for grant of anticipatory bail was 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. 315 of 2022
Ritesh Kumar … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl. P.P.
------
Order No.03 Dated- 15.03.2022
Heard the parties.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No. 103 of 2019 (G.R. No.1698 of 2019) instituted under Sections 364-A, 120-B, 386, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of his common intention with the co-accused person abducted the victim namely Awadhesh Kumar and was demanding ransom of Rs.65 lakhs from the brother of the informant and threatened to kill him, if his demand is not fulfilled. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was instrumental in taking the victim- Awadhesh Kumar near the co-accused persons and once the co-accused persons took the custody of the victim- Awadhesh Kumar, the petitioner has no further role and he went away in separate vehicle. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case. 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 grant of anticipatory bail and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of active involvement in abduction and demanding ransom and he is also
involved in another case being Barwadda P.S. Case No.106 of 2019 for demanding extortion, registered for the offence punishable under Section 385, 387, 34 of I.P.C. and Section 25(1-B) A, 26, 35 of Arms Act, hence, in view of serious allegation against the petitioner, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the specific details of the case. It is also submitted that the anticipatory bail application of the co-accused has already been rejected by this court. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case as well as his criminal antecedent, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Sonu/Gunjan-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner apprehending arrest in connection with the Barwadda P.S. Case No. 103 of 2019.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ritesh Kumar
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
