Mahboob Ansari @ Md. Mahbub Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 4230 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Mahboob Ansari @ Md. Mahbub Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 June, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                                                     2025:JHHC:16697




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                   A.B.A. No. 7763 of 2024

               1. Mahboob Ansari @ Md. Mahbub Ansari
               2. Tajuddin Ansari @ Md. Tajuddin Ansari
               3. Sahjan Ansari
               4. Alabjan Ansari @ Alabjan
                     All sons of Md. Asgar Ali @ Asgar Ansari and all R/o village Anandi
                  Dumar Toli, PO Baridih, PS Ormanjhi, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
                                                                 ..... Petitioner(s).
                                               Versus
               1.The State of Jharkhand
               2. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, S/o late Paras Nath Mishra, R/o Moti Mahal,
               Karamtoli, PO: Ranchi University, PS Lalpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
                                                                   ..... Opposite Parties
                                               ------
                           CORAM        :      SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Kishore Sahu, Advocate For the State : Ms. Shweta Singh, APP For the OP No.2 : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Sah, Advocate

-----

04/24.06.2025: This is an application filed by the petitioners praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of sections 482 and 484 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the petitioners have been allegedly implicated in connection with Complaint Case No. 13291 of 2023, for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 323, 341, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class-XX, Ranchi.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned counsel for the State.

3. The learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

4. The case arises out of a complaint and the petitioners have approached this court only after cognizance has been taken and summons have been issued.

5. Thus, I find that there is no apprehension of the petitioners to be arrested, this anticipatory bail application is absolutely misconceived.

6. Petitioners are directed to appear before the learned Court below, who will pass order in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

(ANANDA SEN, J. ) KNR/