SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 606

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Kausar Ansari – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
A.B.A. No. 2710 of 2023
Decided On : 31-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Anil Kumar Sinha.
For the Respondent: Shiv Shankar Kumar.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 392 – Offence of Robbery – Anticipatory bail – Held, Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for State opposes prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner and submitted that co-accused, who was apprehended has disclosed and stated that tab has been taken by the present petitioner which may be recovered from him – Investigation is at nascent stage, petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail – Nature of allegation coupled with materials on record showing direct involvement of petitioner in alleged serious offence, Court not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to petitioner, which stands rejected – bail rejected.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Mandu (W.B.) P.S. Case No. 218 of 2022 instituted under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved to this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

3. As per F.I.R. allegation is that on 16.09.2022 informant along with his colleague proceeded for group collection on motorcycle, when he was returning along with the collected amount Rs. 64,110/- (Rs. Sixty Four Thousand One Hundred Ten) and in the way to Chainpur, two persons riding on Apache motorcycle stopped them and snatched the bag containing Rs. 64,110/- along with one Samsung tab on the point of pistol.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused. It is submitted that petitioner is welder mechanic by profession and was never involved in such type of offence. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner 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 petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

5. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that co-accused, who was apprehended has disclosed and stated that tab has been taken by the present petitioner which may be recovered from him. Investigation is at nascent stage, hence, petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation coupled with materials on record showing direct involvement of petitioner in alleged serious offence, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, which stands rejected.

7. Petitioner is 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top