Anticipatory bail is denied when cognizance has been taken under serious charges, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations.

Order :

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

1. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 354, 498- A, 504, 506 and 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Complaint Case No.3819 of 2023 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Hazaribag.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.08.2024 passed in A.B.A. No.3088 of 2024. By way of present anticipatory bail application, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail primarily for the reason that subsequent to rejection of his anticipatory bail application, no cognizance for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner and three other co- accused persons has been taken by the concerned trial court as would be evident from the order dated 12^th January, 2024. Hence, the allegation made in paragraph no.18 of the complaint gets falsified. Under the said changed circumstance, 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 though vide order dated 12^th January, 2024, the concerned trial court has not taken cognizance against the petitioner and other co-accused persons under Section 376 of the I.P.C., however, the order of cognizance suggests that the allegation against the petitioner under various penal offences i.e., under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 354, 498-A, 504, 506, 120-B/34 of the I.P.C. has been found true during enquiry. Since the cognizance has also been taken under Section 307 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner, the allegation made by the O.P. No.2 (the complainant) in paragraph no.18 of the complaint has been found true. Hence, the petitioner, who is the husband of the O.P. No.2, may not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record as well as that vide order dated 12^th January, 2024 passed by the concerned trial court in Complaint Case No.3819 of 2023, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under various penal provisions of IPC including 307 of the IPC, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to him.

5. Accordingly, present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.