Binay Khalkho @ Binay Kumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 557 Jhar

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         A.B. A. No. 5220 of 2020

                  Binay Khalkho @ Binay Kumar Khalkho                ...             Petitioner

                                                      Versus
                  The State of Jharkhand                         ...   Opposite Party


          Coram:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

          For the Petitioner               : Mr. J. S. Singh, Adv.
          For the State                    : Mr. Vijay Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P.




04 / 05.02.2021

Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

In view of the personal undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter are ignored for the present.

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Piparwar P.S. Case No. 36 of 2019 registered under Sections 385, 386, 387 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 17(I) (II) of CLA Act and Sections 16, 17, 20, 23 of the UAP Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 11.02.2020 passed in ABA No. 9024 of 2019. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the said order, learned Addl. PP though submitted that the petitioner has made false averments in para-17 of the anticipatory bail application that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent but the petitioner was involved in Piparwar P.S. case no. 29 of 2012 and Piparwar P.S. case no. 40 of 2019 but the petitioner, in fact, in connection with Piparwar P.S. case no. 29 of 2012 has been acquitted vide judgment dated. 12.06.2017 by learned Sessions Judge, Chatra and in connection with Piparwar P.S. case no. 40 of 2019, the petitioner has been admitted to bail hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances including the involvement in a murder case and that the petitioner has been absconding since long after committing murder, as well as requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case but still the petitioner has avoided the police and he has managed to remain at large for about a year, hence, the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner as well as keeping in view the involvement in a murder case, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the said order dated 11.02.2020 passed in ABA No. 9024 of 2019.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-