Chandan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2387 Jhar

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         A.B. A. No. 4386 of 2021

                  Chandan Singh                             ...        Petitioner

                                                   Versus

              The State of Jharkhand                ...       Opposite Party



          Coram:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

          For the Petitioner             : Mr. Aashish Kumar ,Adv.
          For the State                  : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey ,Addl. P.P.



02 / 16.07.2021

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 Govindpur P.S. Case No. 475 of 2015 registered under Sections 364A/ 120B / 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of the common intention with the co-accused persons and in criminal conspiracy, abducted the victim and demanded ransom of Rs. 4,00,000/-but later on scaled down the demand of ransom to Rs. 50,000/-. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and those allegations are general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and the co-accused persons who faced the trial have already been acquitted vide judgment dated 20th May, 2016 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 victim has categorically stated about his abduction by three persons and demand of ransom made from his wife. It is further submitted by learned Addl. PP that as the petitioner was not in the dock while trial of the co-accused persons was going on and therefore, there was no occasion for the victim to identify the petitioner though he supported the case of the abduction and demand of ransom hence, in view of serious allegation against the petitioner, the petitioner is required to be put on TIP as well as his custodial interrogation is required during investigation of the case to find the details of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner of 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/-