High Court Ranchi rejected Anticipatory Bail application under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 506 and 34 IPC, holding serious nature and dangerous injuries preclude bail. Order directs surrender for regular bail within four weeks.
Application for anticipatory bail rejected. Petitioners to surrender within four weeks to seek regular bail.
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. 1647 of 2023
------
1.Mukhlal Yadav 2.Satish Yadav .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party ------
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----For the Petitioners : Ms. Alka Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, Addl.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Atul Kumar Tiwari, Advocate ------
Order No. 02 Dated- 21.03.2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apprehending their arrest in connection with Chouparan P.S. Case No. 164 of 2022 instituted under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.
As per FIR allegation is that on 09.06.2022 at about 4 P.M., the informant’s mother was going for work and reached near the house of Mukhlal Yadav, suddenly all the accused persons including the petitioners came armed with sticks, iron rods and swords in their hands and started assaulting the informant’s mother with an intention to kill her. Satish Yadav has assaulted his mother on head. On raising alarm, informant and his family members rushed to the place of occurrence. It has also alleged that Mukhlal Yadav assaulted by Farsa on the shoulder of his brother.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence at all rather they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and has submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners
-2-
and also stated that petitioners have attacked with iron rod, lathi and sword on vital parts of the body, which is a serious offence, hence, they do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and nature of injury sustained by the informant, which is found dangerous to his life, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, which stands rejected.
Petitioners are directed to surrender before the court below within four weeks and pray for regular bail, the learned court below shall consider the same on its own merits, without being prejudiced by this order.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
R.S./-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners facing serious criminal charges including an offence of attempted murder.
Whether there is sufficient confidence to extend anticipatory bail to petitioners who allegedly attacked a victim with lethal weapons.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mukhlal Yadav
Satish Yadav
The State of Jharkhand
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
