Petitioner sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to nine opposite parties. The Court observed that allegations were general and omnibus in nature, consistent with reasons for the earlier bail grant, 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. 71 of 2021 Samsul Alam @ Shamsul Alam ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & others … Opposite Parties --CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY Through Video Conferencing
--For the Petitioner : Mr. Din Dayal Saha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, 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.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and 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 to 10 in A.B.A. No. 2002 of 2020 vide order dated 10.08.2020.
Mr. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to the First Information Report while submitting that the allegations are specific in nature. He has also referred to the injury report of Shamim Akhtar and has submitted that on account of the brutal assault made by the opposite parties No. 2 to 10, grievous injuries had been suffered by Shamim Akhtar.
It appears from the order dated 10.08.2020 granting anticipatory bail to the opposite parties No. 2 to 10 in A.B.A. No. 2002 of 2020 that consideration was primarily made to the fact that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature and with respect to the said incident another F.I.R. was instituted by the wife of the opposite party No. 5 being Radhanagar P.S. Case No. 468 of 2019. The injury suffered by Shamim Akhtar was also taken into consideration as would appear from the said order. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to the First Information Report, but on a perusal of the same it appears that the allegations are absolutely general and omnibus in nature so far as the opposite parties No. 2 to 10 are concerned.
In such circumstances, therefore, I am not inclined to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner in this application and the same is hereby dismissed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J.)
MK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prayer for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to opposite parties Nos. 2 to 10 should be allowed.
Whether allegations in the underlying FIR are specific enough to warrant cancellation of the earlier anticipatory bail.
Samsul Alam @ Shamsul Alam
The State of Jharkhand & others
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
