In this anticipatory bail application, the High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioners' prayer, holding that allegations were specific and the land dispute did not justify a finding of false implication.
The prayer for 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.4102 of 2022
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
-----For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Md. Sajid Yunus, Advocate --------
03/20.07.2022 Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P. for the
State.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the abovenamed applicants seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Katkamdag P.S. Case No.09 of 2022 registered under Sections 143, 341, 323, 324, 379, 427, 385, 354-B, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged against five named accused including the applicants and four to five unknown persons with the allegation that all the accused persons encroached his land appertaining to Khata No.499, Plot No.2393 measuring an area of 39 decimals and demolished the boundary wall and also stolen the Sariya worth Rs.5 lacs. The occurrence was of 10th January, 2022 at 12 O’ Clock of night. The informant heard the sound of rod cutting machine and came out of his house and he identified all the accused persons. On being opposed, all hurled abuse and began to beat. Accused Md. Jalil and Tabarak Hussain throttled him and Md. Ibrahim and Riyasat Ali also tore the saree and blouse of women of the informant’s family in order to outrage their modesty.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted admittedly there is land dispute between the parties and the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the applicants are having no criminal antecedent and they have been implicated in this case in order to humiliate them on being arrested by the police.
Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and contended that the allegations made against all the named accused in the F.I.R. is specific and so far as the enmity of land dispute is concerned, the enmity is such double edged weapon on the basis of the same, the possibility of commission of the offence is also equal to that of false implication.
-2-
In view of the submissions made and materials available on record, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, their prayer for the same is, hereby, rejected.
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Rohit
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicants in connection with offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Whether the existence of a land dispute justifies a finding of false implication for the purpose of granting anticipatory bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Reyasat Ali
Md. Ibrahim @ Ibrahim
The State of Jharkhand
Moinuddin
Subhash Chand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
