Petitioner sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to accused individuals, alleging threats. The High Court examined the grounds but found them insufficient to warrant cancellation and dismissed the application.
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
Cr.M.P. No. 48 of 2021
Sita Devi ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dayanand Sharma 3. Anand Sharma … Opposite Parties --CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY Through Video Conferencing
--For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. --- Order No. 05 Dated 15th February, 2022
So far as the defect No. 9(ii) is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the same within a period of two weeks. As regards the defect No. 9(iii), as pointed out by the office, is concerned, the same are ignored.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned APP appearing for the State.
In this application, the petitioner has prayed for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 on 31.08.2020 in A.B.A. No. 2372 of 2020.
It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is being regularly threatened by the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 for which an information has also been given to the Superintendent of Police, Koderma.
It appears that the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 were granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 31.08.2020 in A.B.A. No. 2372 of 2020. It further appears from a perusal of the said order that there is a long standing enmity between the petitioner and the accused persons and consideration was also made with respect to the fact that the victim was in an inebriated condition and some of the independent witnesses have not ruled the possibility of the injury sustained by the victim on account of a fall.
The reasons spelled out in this application does not implore this Court to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and accordingly this application stands dismissed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J.)
MK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail granted to opposite parties can be cancelled due to threats alleged by the petitioner.
Sita Devi
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
