Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12184 (JHR)

SUNNY KUMAR MEHTA ALIAS MANTU MEHTA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./2578/2025 · 2025-04-30

Sri Ananda Sen

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:12877 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2578 of 2025 ----- Sunny Kumar Mehta @ Mantu Mehta, S/o Ayodhya Mehta, R/o Sai Vihar Colony,, Bhag-2, New Madhukam, P.O. Ranchi- GPO, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Jha, Advocate For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. …...... 02/ 30.04.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This is an application filed by the petitioner praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of Sections 482 and 484 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 apprehending his arrest for the offences under Sections 109(1), 3(5) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. This case is at the investigation stage. There is a direct allegation against the petitioner that he has fired on the informant and the bullet was later on extracted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the informant has given several representations that the petitioner had not assaulted and there are other unknown persons, who might have assaulted. 5. After going through the F.I.R., I find that there is direct allegation against this petitioner of shooting at the informant. In the F.I.R. also this petitioner specifically alleged to have shot the informant. 6. From the impugned order, I find that the Trial Court has recorded that a joint compromise petition has been filed. 7. In these types of cases, there is no question of joint compromise. Investigation is still pending. From the submission, only one factual aspect which can be gathered is that the petitioner is directly interfering in the investigation and also tampering with the evidence. Thus, this is not only a case of custodial interrogation, but it is a case of custodial trial also, I find that this 2025:JHHC:12877 is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner in connection with Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No.82 of 2025, pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C. at Ranchi, stands rejected. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./