Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Bag v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 394, 411
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, coupled with materials available on record against the petitioner and in view of criminal background of petitioner and recovery of stolen mobile phone from the house of petitioner, I am not inclined to extend the privilege…
Judgment
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.05 Dated- 22.12.2023 ------ Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with Kadma P.S. Case No. 77 of 2022 instituted under Sections 394 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.
The FIR was lodged alleging that on 06.05.2022 while the informant along with his friends were going to Sastrinagar on scooty and as they stopped to attend nature call, in the meantime, petitioner along with his associates came near to him and demanded cigarate. On refusal of their demand saying that he is non-smoker, they abused and snatched the mobile phone and threatened him to not disclose the incident to anyone.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of petitioner and he has falsely been implicated in this case merely on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused person. It is further submitted that petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and due to grudge; he has been roped in this case. Petitioner undertakes to co- operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and stolen mobile phone has been recovered from the house of the petitioner and he has two criminal antecedents. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, coupled with materials available on record against the petitioner and in view of criminal background of petitioner and recovery of stolen mobile phone from the house of petitioner, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of anticipatory bail application of petitioner is rejected. Pappu/ (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)