Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8728 (JHR)

TARUN KUMAR GUPTA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./1962/2024 · 2025-06-11

Sri Ananda Sen

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:15060 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1962 of 2024 ----- Tarun Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Shital Prasad Gupta, R/o Village- Sarkheldih, P.O. Sarkheldih, P.S. Jamtara, District- Jamtara .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate For the State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, AddI. P.P. …...... 11/ 11.06.2025: 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 438 and 440 of the Criminal Procedure Code apprehending his arrest for the offences under Sections 461 and 379 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a social worker and has nothing do with the occurrence. He submits that someone has committed theft in the community center and since the petitioner had organized group marriages for the poor couples, therefore, he has been made an accused in this case. He further submits that Executive Magistrate has also not stated anything about the commission of theft by the petitioner. 4. The learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and produces the case-diary. She also submits that the petitioner has got four other criminal cases pending against him. 5. After going through the record, I find that the allegation against this petitioner is that he is involved in commission of theft of A.C., light, fan etc. from the community hall, which was kept locked and main gate was sealed by the order of the Court. The doors and windows of the said building was missing and some windows were broken and several materials were stolen. 6. From the case-diary, I find that in the statement at paragraph 17 one of the witness stated that he had seen the petitioner and others breaking and removing the A.Cs. and other materials and were taking them. 5. Considering the nature of allegation, I find that this 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 Jamtara P.S. Case No.19 of 2023, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara, stands rejected. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./