Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16009 (JHR)

MAROOF ANSARI ALIAS MARUF ANSARI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./3152/2025 · 2025-06-10

Sri Ananda Sen

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:14939 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3152 of 2025 ------ Maroof Ansari @ Maruf Ansari, son of Faruk Ansari, resident of village Mahuadanr, Amboatoli, PO and PS Latehar, District Latehar, Jharkhand … … Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agarwal, Spl. PP ----- 02/ 10.06.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for offences registered under Sections 12(1) and 12(3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in connection with Mahuadanr PS Case No. 39 of 2024. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with the others were selling prohibited flesh. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that one co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail and he relies on the said order passed in ABA No. 1575 of 2025. After going through the said order, I do not find any reason therein. 5. Learned A.P.P. representing the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation and his custodial interrogation is necessary as notice under section 35(3) of BNSS were issued thrice on 05.09.2024, 22.11.2024 and 24.12.2024 but the petitioner has not appeared before the investigating officer to get his statement recorded. 2025:JHHC:14939 2 6. Considering the aforesaid fact and non-cooperation of the petitioner and also nature of allegation wherein the petitioner is selling prohibited animal flesh, this Court finds it not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands dismissed. 8. On the appearance of the petitioner before the court concerned, his case will be considered without being prejudiced by this order. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/Cp-3