Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in an FIR alleging assault with arms and snatching a golden chain causing grievous injuries. The High Court rejected the prayer, noting at the initial investigation stage and the gravity of offences, it was not inclined to extend bail.
Anticipatory bail application of the petitioners is 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.9274 of 2022
------
.... .... …. Petitioners
------
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----For the Petitioners : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kr. Tiwari, Addl.P.P
------
Order No.06 Dated- 05.01.2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apprehending their arrest in connection with Mayurhand P.S. Case No. 36 of 2022 instituted under Sections 143, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307, 341 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.
As per FIR, allegation is that the scuffle took place between the parties due to exploding of crackers in barat party. In the meantime, petitioners along with others armed with lathi, danda , sword and knife came to the marriage hall and started assaulting the informant causing grievous injuries and snatched golden chain from the neck of Himanshu Kumar Singh.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence at all rather they have been falsely implicated in this case with ulterior motive. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioners along with others forming unlawful assembly assaulted the informant causing grievous injuries dangerous to her life. As such, the investigation of the case is at initial stage, hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, coupled with materials available on record and also in view of the gravity of offence and the investigation of the case is at initial stage, hence, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to
the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer of anticipatory bail application of petitioner is rejected.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Pappu/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners accused of causing grievous injuries and snatching property in a scuffle.
Whether the initial stage of investigation bars the extension of anticipatory bail in a case involving underlying aggravated injury.
Whether the court should reject the application for anticipatory bail given the gravity of the offences and the nature of the allegations.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abhishek Kumar Singh
Shasikant Singh
State of Jharkhand
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
