Jharkhand High Court
Md. Sajid @ Sajwa vs The State Of Jharkhand … Opposite … on 22 January, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 1710 of 2024
------
Md. Sajid @ Sajwa, son of Abdul Majid, aged about 49 years,
resident of Ratan Myeeka Road, P.O. & P.S.-Pachamba, Dist.-
Giridih ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
——
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu, Addl. P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Saman Ahmad, Advocate
: Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocate
——
Order No.13 Dated- 22.01.2025
Heard the parties.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this
Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with
Pachamba P.S. Case No.73 of 2023 registered under sections 448/
354B/376/511/323/325/307/379/504/34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner attempted to
commit rape upon the informant and when she resisted the same
and raised hue and cry, the son of the informant came to her rescue
but the petitioner called the co-accused persons and the co-
accused-Md. Farhan attempted to murder the informant causing
injuries on her head. It is further submitted that the allegations
against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner first instituted
Panchamba P.S. Case No. 72 of 2023 and as a counter blast, this
false case has been foisted. It is next submitted that, out of the six
criminal cases of which there is reference in the rejection order of
the anticipatory bail petition passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge-II, Giridih, the petitioner has been acquitted in three cases,
and in one case, he is not an accused but in one of the cases, which
is of the year 1997, he has been convicted. It is then submitted that
the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the
case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the
privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the
informant on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the occurrence of this
case took place at 09:00 am prior to the occurrence at 10:00 am of
the same day in respect of which Panchamba P.S. Case No. 72 of
2023 has been registered. It is then submitted that, to set up a
defence, the petitioner first reached to the police station, before the
informant could reach the police station hence, the FIR of the
petitioner has been instituted prior to that of the informant. It is
next submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel
for the informant that keeping in view the serious nature of
allegation against the petitioner, custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find
out the details of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner
ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the
petitioner and the requirement of custodial interrogation of the
petitioner during the investigation of the case and the criminal
antecedent, this Court is not inclined to give the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant
of privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sonu/Gunjan-
[ad_1]
Source link