Ayush Kumar @ Ayush Tiwari v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 120B, 302
- Arms Act, 1959 s. 27
Judgment
father dead. He named four persons in the FIR namely, Bharat Muru Godhaniya, Ambik Kumar Mandal, Rishi Yadav, and Mangal Singh. He also said that the accused Bharat Muru Godhaniya is a business partner of his father and five to six months back from the date of incident he gave threat to his father. He also alleged that Ambik Kumar Mandal is the main conspirator in the murder. Based on the aforesaid, this case was registered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and due to local politics he is 1 being framed in this case. He claims parity as one accused Ritesh Kumar has been granted anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 1122 of 2024 in connection with the same case.
Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that this is a case of conspiracy and there is involvement of this petitioner though he is not named this case needs thorough investigation for which anticipatory bail should not be granted to this petitioner.
After hearing the parties and after going through the FIR, I find that the petitioner is not named in the FIR but from the case dairy, I find that Bharat Muru Godhaniya, business partner of the deceased was not working properly. Father of the informant entered into some agreement with this petitioner and others. The brother of the informant also stated that there was frequent dispute between this petitioner and others with the deceased. Thus it is apparent that there was some dispute with the deceased and this petitioner and others. The cause of death is due to injury on vital part of the body and there is bullet injury also. Further one of the co-accused Suraj Kumar Singh confessed that Shivam Kumar Singh shot the deceased and this petitioner and others were also involved in the occurrence which is evident from paragraph no. 22 of the case-diary. This is a case based on conspiracy.
Considering the material which has surfaced during investigation till date, it would not be proper to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner as this case needs thorough investigation and if necessary custodial interrogation also.
Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application dismissed. Tanuj/Cp-3 (ANANDA SEN, J.) 2
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.