Dismissed

Lal Bahadur Alias Golu Keshri v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Aug 2022A.B.A./4053/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a robbery case (Section 392 IPC) alleging false implication. The Court rejected the prayer, citing the petitioner’s three serious criminal antecedents and the requirement for custodial interrogation for investigation and recovery. No bail was granted.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner rejected. Bail not extended.

Lal Bahadur Alias Golu Keshri Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.4053 of 2022

¶2

------

¶3

Lal Bahadur @ Golu Keshri .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party

¶4

------

¶5

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶6

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Nirupama, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, Addl.P.P ------

¶7

Order No.04 Dated- 12.08.2022

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Chaas P.S. Case No. 10 of 2022 instituted under Sections 392 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶10

As per F.I.R., the allegation is that on 12.01.2022 at about 8:00 pm, the informant along with his staffs was proceeding towards his house after closing his shop along with 10 lakhs cash and Samsung mobile phone on his motorcycle. At a distance of 100 meters from the shop, three miscreants riding on motorcycle came from behind and dashed the motorcycle of informant and on point of knife and gun, took the key of his motorcycle and took out cash of Rs.10 lakhs and other articles from his motorcycle’s dikky and fled away.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case on the confessional statement of coaccused person namely Sanjvee Kumar Sahni @ Pagla which is not relevant under Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. It is further submitted that no incriminating articles has been recovered from the possession of petitioner. In case of his arrest at the hands of police, prestige and reputation of the petitioner shall be ruined. It is further submitted that petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and will not indulge in tampering with prosecution evidence and will abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court in the matter of granting anticipatory bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner has three

¶13

criminal antecedents of serious nature of offence and informant of this case is being threatened by petitioner through his associates to withdraw the case otherwise, he will face dire consequences. Hence, the custodial interrogation of petitioner is required in this case for further investigation and recovery of the stolen articles. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on record and also in view of the facts that petitioner has criminal antecedents and custodial interrogation of petitioner is required for the purpose of further investigation in this case. Hence, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.

¶15

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶16

Pappu/

Lal Bahadur Alias Golu Keshri v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Bahadur Alias Golu Keshri 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

Ram Pravesh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hanif Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chhutu Mahato Alias Chhutu Lal Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rahul Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Virendra Pratap Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nand Kishor Yadav Alias Nand Kishor Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand