Jharkhand High Court
Sharwan Kumar Yadav @ Sharwan ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 8830 of 2021
------
1. Sharwan Kumar Yadav @ Sharwan Yadav
2. Chandan Kumar Yadav @ Chandan Yadav
... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P.
------
Order No.02 Dated- 27.11.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioners personally undertakes to
remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within
two weeks.
In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for
the petitioners, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are
ignored for the present.
Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this
Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with
Hussainabad P.S. Case No.336 of 2019 (G.R. No. 256 of 2020)
registered under sections 385/386/387/120B/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and under Section 17 of C.L.A. Act.
The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners being the
members of banned extremist organization namely TPC were
demanding extortion. It is further submitted that the allegations
against the petitioners are all false and the petitioners have been
implicated in this case only on the basis of confessional statement
of the co-accused- Kamlesh Sao @ Kamlesh Kumar Sao and
Sudama Yadav. It is then submitted that there is no eyewitness to
the occurrence and the co-accused persons who faced the trial have
since been acquitted vide judgment dated 21.08.2021 passed by the
learned S.D.J.M., Palamau in G.R. Case No.256 of 2020. Hence, it is
submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory
bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes
the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the
petitioners are involved in an organized crime of collecting levy on
behalf of the banned extremist organization TPC and they are
threat to the law and order situation of the locality. It is next
submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are
required during the investigation of the case to find out the details
of the activities of the said banned extremist organization. Hence,
it is submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the
privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the
petitioners as well as the requirement of their custodial
interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of
the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above
named petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of
the above named petitioners is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sonu/Gunjan-
