Dismissed¶16

Tarun Kumar Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Jun 2025A.B.A./1962/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application rejected; Sections 438 and 440 CrPC; offences under Sections 461 and 379 IPC; theft of A.C., fans, lights from locked community hall sealed by court order; case-diary witness saw petitioner removing A.Cs.; Jamtara P.S. Case No. 19 of 2023; Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara; High Court of Jharkhand; Ananda Sen, J.; 11.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

Considering the nature of the allegation, the court held that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. ¶16

Tarun Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:JHHC:15060

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1962 of 2024

¶3

Tarun Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Shital Prasad Gupta, R/o Village- Sarkheldih, P.O. Sarkheldih, P.S. Jamtara, District- Jamtara

¶4

.... Petitioner(s).

¶5

Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s).

¶6

------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶7

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate For the State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, AddI. P.P.

¶8

11/ 11.06.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for

¶9

the State.

¶10

This is an application filed by the petitioner praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of Sections 438 and 440 of the Criminal Procedure Code apprehending his arrest for the offences under Sections 461 and 379 of IPC.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a social worker and has nothing do with the occurrence. He submits that someone has committed theft in the community center and since the petitioner had organized group marriages for the poor couples, therefore, he has been made an accused in this case. He further submits that Executive Magistrate has also not stated anything about the commission of theft by the petitioner.

¶12

The learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and produces the case-diary. She also submits that the petitioner has got four other criminal cases pending against him.

¶13

After going through the record, I find that the allegation against this petitioner is that he is involved in commission of theft of A.C., light, fan etc. from the community hall, which was kept locked and main gate was sealed by the order of the Court. The doors and windows of the said building was missing and some windows were broken and several materials were

¶14

stolen.

¶15

From the case-diary, I find that in the statement at paragraph 17 one of the witness stated that he had seen the petitioner and others breaking and removing the A.Cs. and other materials and were taking them.

¶16

Considering the nature of allegation, I find that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner in connection with Jamtara P.S. Case No.19 of 2023, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara, stands rejected.

¶17

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶18

R.S./

Tarun Kumar Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Kumar Gupta 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

Saifuddin Ahmad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Syed Jamal Ahmad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramdev Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Subhash Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepu Mehta Alias Deepu Kumar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Turi Vs the State of Jharkhand