MD JAVED ALI ALIAS MD JAVED v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
A.B.A./51/2026 · 2026-01-12
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 10235 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 10235 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:JHHC:666] -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 51 of 2026
Md. Javed Ali @ Md. Javed, aged about 30 years, S/o Md. Shikander, R/o Makdampur, Road No. 2, P.O. and P.S.-Parsudih, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.
..... … Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand
..... … Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate.
For the State
: Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, A.P.P. ------
03/ 12.01.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.
2.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Parsudih P.S. Case No. 140 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 121, 122, 126(2), 127(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109(1), 329(3), 352 and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.
3.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there are general and omnibus allegations against the petitioner of making assault and false case has been lodged against the petitioner. He next submits that five persons have already been provided the privilege of anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 7216 of 2025 by this court.
4.
Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that the allegation is there against the petitioner of making assault on the head of the informant.
5.
Looking into the contents of the FIR, it transpires that the allegation of making assault on the head of the informant is against this petitioner, pursuant to that grievous injury has been caused to him and
[2026:JHHC:666] -2-
in that view of the matter, case of the petitioner is not identical in nature of five persons, who have been provided the privilege of anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 7216 of 2025, as such, the benefit of parity cannot be extended to the petitioner.
6.
In view of the above, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-12.01.2026 Amitesh/-