Jharkhand High Court
Arshalan Ansari @ Bablu vs The State Of Jharkhand … … Opposite … on 12 August, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:23323
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 2728 of 2025
----
Arshalan Ansari @ Bablu, S/o Md. Khadim, R/o Village-Kokdoro, P.S. Pithoria,
P.O.- Kokdoro, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Apurva, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Spl. P.P.
For the Informant: Mr. Sourabh Kumar Das, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
----
ORDER
RESERVED ON 01.08.2025 PRONOUNCED ON 12.08.2025
This anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by
the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Pithoria P.S. Case
No. 144/2024, registered for offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 190,
126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 352, 351(2), 351(3) & 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, pending in the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class at Ranchi.
2. The case of prosecution is that on 12.18.2024, at 9 AM, Hatim
Ansari was cleaning a bus on his nephew’s property when five men-
Sajjawuddin, Sahid, Ramij, Irsahd, and Khalik Ansari came and demanded
Rs.20 lakh as Rangdari. They threatened to stop work and damaged the
boundary wall. Later, around 11:55 AM, the informant was at a nearby
construction site with his child when Sahid and eight others came with
weapons, abused him, demanded the money again, and threatened to kill
them if they didn’t pay. When the informant protested, Sajjawuddin Ansari
attacked him with a rod, which caused him to fall and break his leg. Sahid
Ansari then beat him with a hockey stick on his back and hit him on the head
and leg with a revolver. Another person, Ramij Ansari, also assaulted him. As
a result, the informant’s leg was fractured, and he sustained severe injury.
-: 1 :-
2025:JHHC:23323
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is
completely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further
submitted that the petitioner has been implicated absolutely on the basis of his
alleged presence and apart from the said allegations, no specific allegations
have been levelled against this petitioner. He further submitted that no overt
act has been attributed to the petitioner rather allegations against the
petitioner is general and omnibus in nature. He also submitted that the
petitioner has been implicated in this case merely on the basis of suspicion. It
is his case that the informant’s family members, one or other, on regular basis
have filed cases against the petitioners arising out of family dispute and later
on were quashed on compromise of the matter and this is one of such cases.
4. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned counsel
appearing for the informant opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of
anticipatory bail. They submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the
privilege of anticipatory bail. They further submitted that according to the case
diary, the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. They further
contended that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious in
nature. They contended that the informant and other witnesses have
supported the incident in their statements under Section 180 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, wherein they have specifically named the
accused petitioner involved in the incident. According to the case diary,
statement of eye witness namely Maruf Rehana and Firoja Khatoon, clearly
described the role of the petitioner. They further submitted that there are three
other criminal cases also against the petitioner.
5. I have gone through the available records and the Case Diary. I
find that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of assaulting. Further,
from paragraph 77 of the Case Diary, I find that there are three cases pending
against the petitioner in two different police stations, namely, Pithoria Police
Station Case No.135 of 2024 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 386, 387,
504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code; Pithoria Police Station Case No.33 of
2024 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 506, 504 of
the Indian Penal Code; and Kanke Police Station Case No.328 of 2024 for
offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 127(2), 109, 126(2), 115(2) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The eye witnesses Maruf Rehana, Firoja
Khatoon and Naseeb Ansari, whose statements are recorded by the
Investigating Officer and find place in the Case Diary, have categorically
stated about the role played by the petitioner in the assault. They have stated
-: 2 :-
2025:JHHC:23323
that this petitioner has assaulted the informant party. The doctor has also
found injury on the body of the victim.
6. Considering the statement of the witnesses, who had seen this
petitioner taking part in the occurrence and also the fact that there are criminal
cases pending against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is,
accordingly, rejected.
7. This anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-03
-: 3 :-