MAKAEL ANSARI ALIAS MEKAIL ANSARI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
A.B.A./8156/2024 · 2025-01-13
Anil Kumar Choudhary
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 30192 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 30192 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.8156 of 2024
------ Makael Ansari @ Mekail Ansari, aged about 34 years, Son of Chhota Kashim Ansari, Resident of Village- Chhelapathar, P.O. & P.S.- Masalia, District- Dumka, Jharkhand (814110)
.... .... …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the State
: Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, Addl.P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated- 13-01-2025
Heard the parties.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with Nala P.S. Case No.66 of 2024 instituted under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed cheating and criminal breach of trust by dishonestly misappropriating the corn (Makai) of 25,810 KG entrusted to him. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any condition. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, his custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case to recover the misappropriated property. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of
privileges of anticipatory bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/