Dismissed¶16

Anitya Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Feb 2025A.B.A./1238/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected by Jharkhand High Court (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) in Anitya Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand, A.B.A. No.1238 of 2025 (order dated 21/02/2025), arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No.194 of 2024 under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 351(2) & 303(2) B.N.S., 2023; rejection grounded on seriousness of allegation and need for custodial interrogation to recover weapon of assault.

What did the court decide?

Considering the serious nature of the allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case (to find out the weapon of assault and other details), this Court held that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and rejected the prayer. ¶16

Anitya Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1238 of 2025

¶2

------

¶3

Anitya Kumar, aged about 19 years, S/O Chandrabansh Kumar Srivastava, R/O Prasad Market, Lohar Tola, Near Ashoka Hotel, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh & District Ramgarh, Jharkhand.

¶4

.... .... …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party

¶7

------

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl.P.P. ------

¶10

Order No.02 Dated- 21/02/2025

¶11

Heard the parties.

¶12

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.194 of 2024 registered under Section 190, 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 351(2) & 303(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was taking liquor and on being forbade by the informant and others, he attempted to murder Ankit Sah and the informant Nitin Kumar Singh causing grievous injury on his temporal region. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶14

Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner is a threat to the law-and-order situation of the locality, hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case in order to find out the weapon of assault and other details of the case. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶15

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the

¶16

case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected.

¶17

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶18

Abhiraj/

Anitya Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitya Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Goutam Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Taslim Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md. Abdul Mallik Alias Abdul Mallik Vs the State of Jharkhand

Yadav Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rahul Kumar Sharma Alias Rahul Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shamim Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand