Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9214 (JHR)

ANIL KUMAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./2276/2025 · 2025-04-09

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[ 2025:JHHC:10980] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 2276 of 2025 Anil Kumar, aged about 21 years, S/o- Shambhu Paswan, R/o- vill- Jitani mod, P.O+PS- Chatra, Dist-Chatra, Jharkhand-825401, … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … opp. party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishav Kumar , Adv. For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, Addl. PP 02 / 09.04.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No. 6 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 309 (6) of the BNS, 2023. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in commission of robbery and causing hurt to the victim while committing robbery and looted Rs. 43,205/- and mobile phone of the informant. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Spl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view of serious allegation against the petitioner, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during investigation of the case for recovery of the looted article and to find out the details of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-