Anticipatory bail sought in a case of alleged assault on the informant's head causing grievous injury. Considering the direct allegation and nature of injury, the court declined anticipatory bail and rejected 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
A.B.A. No. 5869 of 2024
Santosh Seth son of Chhote Lal Seth, resident of Kashidih, Line No. 1 Bagan No. 4, Kalimati, P.O. & P.S.- Kalimati, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum … … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …. … Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. Order No. 04 Dated: 17.09.2024
The petitioner apprehending his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 341/323/325/307/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Olidih P.S. Case No. 182 of 2024 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. 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 in the F.I.R. The petitioner is the neighbour of the informant. The allegation made by the informant in the written report is highly exaggerated. Even if the content of the written report is taken to be true, there is no injury on the vital part of the body of the informant. Moreover, no incriminating article has been recovered from the place of occurrence. There is a case and counter case between the parties for the same occurrence. The petitioner’s wife has also sustained serious injury in the said occurrence inflicted by the informant and his wife. Hence, the petitioner may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
3. Learned A.P.P. while opposing the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail, submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and his son- Golu that they by means of wooden ‘Pauwa’
and iron hammer respectively assaulted the informant on his head due to which he sustained grievous injury. The informant also sustained injury on his nose due to the said assault. Hence, the petitioner may not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the allegation made against the petitioner that he assaulted the informant on his head due to which he sustained grievous injury, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
5. The present anticipatory bail application is accordingly
rejected.
Ritesh/
2
A.B.A. No.5869 of 2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner apprehending arrest for offences including Section 307 IPC should be granted anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Santosh Seth
The State of Jharkhand
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court