Sunil Prajapati Alias Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 141 of 2023 registered under Sections 141, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 325, 324, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

As per F.I.R., allegation upon the petitioner is that he and other co-accused persons have attacked the informant’s father who came to his house and the father of the informant got killed. Informant was also injured and the hand of his sister got fractured.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner is innocent and whole family members have been dragged in this case without any specific allegation against them. Only one injury was sustained by the deceased which was found fatal, but there is no evidence that who has assaulted the deceased. It is further submitted that a land dispute was going on between the parties since prior to the occurrence. Hence, false case has been made against the petitioner. It is further submitted that for the same occurrence a counter case has also been lodged by the wife of the petitioner and the petitioner himself has sustained grievous injuries and has been struggling with life and death about 5-6 days. It is further submitted that other co-accused persons have been granted regular bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court . Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and also abide by all terms and conditions which may be imposed in the matter of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioners may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that due to land dispute between the parties from long time, the occurrence took place. When the deceased who was working in Army posted at Sikkim returned to his home then, in a pre-planned manner all the family members including the petitioner have attacked the deceased and gave a fatal blow due to which he has been died. There is a counter case and the presence of the petitioner who has also sustained injuries in that incident which also fortifies the occurrence has taken place. Therefore, petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case stated above, the nature of allegation against petitioner which is obviously serious and severity of punishment, I don’t feel inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, which stands rejected. 7. Petitioners are directed to surrender before the court below 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.)

¶15

Amar/Sunil

Sunil Prajapati Alias Sunil Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand