Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a P.S. case involving serious offenses including arson and public property damage. Court rejected prayer due to serious allegations and need for custodial interrogation.
Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected; defects of papers ignored pending removal.
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. 607 of 2022
Shahzeb Hussain … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar ,Adv. For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey ,Addl. P.P.
02 / 14.02.2022 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner personally 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 the personal undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 21 of 2020 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 323, 325, 379, 307, 332, 333, 353, 427, 435, 436 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of Damage to Public Property Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of the assembly, the petitioner attacked the procession taken out in support of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and threw stones from the roof of the house damaging several government properties badly. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case on the basis of CCTV footage and the petitioner has no concern with the alleged occurrence. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-
operate with the investigation of the case hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is involved in organizing criminal activities and he is threat to law and order in the locality. It is further submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of resorting to arson and vandalism besides torching motorcycles and vehicles of police personnel and also setting fire to readymade store and looting T.V., fridge and other valuable articles from the consumer durable shops without any provocation and also setting fire to several shops and car, hence, in view of serious allegation against the petitioner, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during investigation of the case to find out the further details of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
( ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
Shahzeb Hussain
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
