Mobarak Seikh Alias Mobarak Hussain Alias Mobarak Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Mobarak Seikh Alias Mobarak Hussain Alias Mobarak Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, who are apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 354, 379, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 178 of 2022 pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal, should be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. +1 more

Court's answer

On the above considerations, the court rejected the present anticipatory bail application.

Ratio / Principle

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation made against the petitioners, as well as that their earlier anticipatory bail application A.B.A. No. 80 of 2023 had already been dismissed as withdrawn and that they had not made out any fresh ground for reconsideration of their anticipatory bail application, the Judge stated that he was not inclined to grant them the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi — A.B.A. No. 274 of 2024, Order No. 06 dated 08.07.2024 (Justice Rajesh Shankar): ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION REJECTED. The three petitioners (Mobarak Seikh @ Mobarak Hussain @ Mobarak; Abu Kalam @ Istab Ali; Idul @ Idul Seikh @ Idu Seikh) were apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 354, 379, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 178 of 2022, pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal. Counsel claimed false implication out of personal grudge, existence of a case-and-counter-case, and absence of criminal antecedents. The Court, however, considering the nature of allegations, and noting that the petitioners' earlier anticipatory bail application A.B.A. No. 80 of 2023 (filed jointly with five other accused persons) had been dismissed as withdrawn by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.09.2023, found that no fresh ground had been made out for reconsideration, and accordingly rejected the application.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

A.B.A. No. 274 of 2024

---

Mobarak Seikh @ Mobarak Hussain @ Mobarak

Abu Kalam @ Istab Ali

Idul @ Idul Seikh @ Idu Seikh … … Petitioners Versus

The State of Jharkhand …. … Opposite Party

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

For the Petitioners : Mr. Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P.

Order No. 06 Dated: 08.07.2024

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 354, 379, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 178 of 2022 pending in the court of SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The informant has named the petitioners in the F.I.R. out of personal grudge and enmity. There is a case and counter case between the parties for the same occurrence. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent and hence, they may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

3. Learned A.P.P. while opposing the petitioners’ prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, submits that the petitioners along with five other accused persons namely Najrul Seikh, Naim Seikh @ Naim Raja @ Md. Naim Raja, Ansar Seikh, Mannan Seikh @ Abdul Mannan and Baras Seikh @ Ares Seikh had earlier preferred

anticipatory bail application being A.B.A. No. 80 of 2023, however the said anticipatory bail application with respect to the present petitioners was dismissed as withdrawn by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.09.2023. The petitioners have not made out any fresh ground for reconsideration of their anticipatory bail. Hence, they may not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation made against the petitioners as well as that earlier anticipatory bail application preferred by them being A.B.A. No. 80 of 2023 has already been dismissed as withdrawn and that they have not made out any fresh ground for reconsideration of their anticipatory bail application, I am not inclined to grant them the privilege of anticipatory bail.

5. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is rejected.

Ritesh/

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)