Dismissed¶14

Anant Tiwari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Jul 2024A.B.A./3279/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anant Tiwari vs The State of Jharkhand; A.B.A. No. 3279 of 2024; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; decided 11.07.2024; Rajesh Shankar, J.; anticipatory bail refused; Sections 457/380 IPC; Godda (M) Motiya O.P. P.S. Case No. 116 of 2023; G.R. No. 1302 of 2023; Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda; petitioner not named in F.I.R.; name surfaced via confessional statement of co-accused Raj Kumar; villagers identified petitioner in CCTV footage of bank; advocates Ranjit Kumar (petitioner), Ajay Kumar Pathak, A.P.P. (State); no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the fact that local villagers identified the petitioner as one of the miscreants in the video footage of the CCTV installed in the bank, the Judge was not inclined to grant him anticipatory bail. ¶13

Anant Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3279 of 2024

¶2

Anant Tiwari … … Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶5

For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, A.P.P.

¶6

-----

¶7

03/11.07.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest for the offence punishable under Sections 457/380 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Godda (M) Motiya O.P. P.S. Case No. 116 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. No. 1302 of 2023, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda.

¶9

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R and his name has surfaced in course of investigation on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Raj Kumar. Except the said confessional statement, the police has not collected any cogent evidence so as to connect him with the alleged offence. Hence, the petitioner may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶10

4. Learned A.P.P. while opposing the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail submits that during investigation, the video footage of the CCTV installed in the bank was shown to the villagers, who identified the petitioner as one of the miscreants.

¶11

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view that the local villagers have identified the

¶12

¶13

petitioner as one of the miscreants in the video footage of the CCTV installed in the bank, I am not inclined to grant him anticipatory bail.

¶14

6. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected.

¶15

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶16

Manish

¶17