ASHIF ARAKI ALLIAS MD ASHIF ARAKI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
A.B.A./2415/2025 · 2025-04-21
Sri Ananda Sen
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3128 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3128 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:11940 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.2415 of 2025 ------ Md Ashif Araki @ Ashif Araki, son of Md. Ajij Araki, resident of Main Road, P.O. & P.S. Hesla, Manua, Ramgarh, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. ... ... Opposite Party ------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Yadav, Advocate For the State : Ms. Shweta Singh, A.P.P. -----
06/ 21.04.2025
This Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Lower Bazar P.S. Case No.97 of 2024, for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 379, 411 and 34 IPC. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class at Ranchi.
2.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other anti social elements was involved in hoodwinking the innocent travellers near Khadgarha Bus Stand, using the imitation jewellery as a bait to grab money. Further allegation is that they used to impersonate themselves as police personnel and extort money from innocent people on the threat of arrest.
3.
Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner.
4.
Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner is involved in such
2025:JHHC:11940 2
activities since long and the police were trying to catch hold of them. She submits that there were four person involved in this offence including this petitioner and out of them, three were arrested and one i.e. this petitioner fled away, otherwise he would have also been behind bars on that day itself.
5.
Heard the parties at length.
6.
Considering the nature of allegation and the involvement of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7.
Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed.
8.
The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court below.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Prashant. Cp-3