Jharkhand High Court
Ayush Kumar Pandey @ Ayush Pandey vs State Of Jharkhand … Opposite Party on 21 January, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 215 of 2025
------
Ayush Kumar Pandey @ Ayush Pandey, aged about 22 years,
S/o Abhimanyu Pandey, R/o Chirayaghat Road, P.O.
Giridih, P.S. -Giridih, District -Giridih.
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
——
For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Kumar No.1, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P.
——
Order No.02 Dated- 21.01.2025
Heard the parties.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court
for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Giridih
(T) P.S. Case No.67 of 2024 registered under sections 341/323/325/
307/379/427/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the
second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for anticipatory bail
and earlier the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was
dismissed as withdrawn after some argument. It is next submitted
that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in
furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons
attempted to murder the brother of the informant with lathi, danda
and iron rod with an intention to kill him, causing grievous injury
and also took away seven to eight thousand rupees from the cash
locker of the victim and also snatched gold chain of the informant. It
is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all
false. It is then submitted that the petitioner has two criminal
antecedents and in both the cases, he is on bail. It is then submitted
that there is a delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R. Hence, it is
submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory
bail.
The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes
the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the
petitioner is a threat to the law-and-order situation in the locality. It
is then submitted that there is every chance of the petitioner
tampering with evidence and absconding, if released on bail. It is
next submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of
the case and for recovery of the weapons of assault. It is then
submitted that as the victim sustained severe injury, hence he first
underwent treatment and after a couple of days, when he became fit
to give his statement, only the F.I.R. could be registered. 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 to find out
the details of the case and for recovery of the weapon of offence as
also the chance of his tampering with the evidence and absconding,
if released on bail, 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 abovenamed petitioners is
rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sonu/Gunjan-
[ad_1]
Source link