IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

A.B.A. No.11231 of 2022

------

Bappu Ghosh @ Sarojit Ghosh

....

....

….

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

....

....

....Opposite Party

------

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

------

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, Addl.P.P

------

Order No.04 Dated- 25.01.2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Radhanagar P.S.

Case No. 82 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 627 of 2017 instituted

under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 307, 332, 333, 353 and 504 of

the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to

Public Property Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of

privilege of anticipatory bail.

It is alleged that a lady was lynched by mob, for which

Radhanagar P.S. Case No. 81 of 2017 was instituted. After lynching, it is

stated that a mob gathered including present petitioner and thereafter

they obstructed the police and also assaulted them, for which this

instant case has been registered. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R.

and it is alleged that he was identified through video clips.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has

been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion. It is further

submitted that the petitioner is merely a member of mob and has not

participated in any activity. There is general and omnibus allegation

against the petitioner. Co-accused with similar allegations have already

been admitted regular bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide

order dated 11.12.2017, 08.12.2017, 12.09.2019 passed in B.A. No.9015 of

2017, B.A. No.8902 of 2022 and B.A. No.8163 of 2019 respectively.

Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case.

Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for

anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Considering facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed

above, coupled with materials available on record and also in view of

the gravity of offence, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of

anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of

anticipatory bail application of petitioner is rejected.

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.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Pappu/