Jharkhand High Court
Shamshad Ansari @ Md. Shamshad Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 20 October, 2020
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 5241 of 2020
------
1. Shamshad Ansari @ Md. Shamshad Ansari
2. Abul Ansari @ Md. Abul ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Md. Abdul Wahab, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.K. Dubey, Addl. P.P.
------
Order No.02 Dated- 20.10.2020
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 after the lockdown period is over.
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 Rajabhitha P.S. Case No.17 of 2020 registered under sections 147/ 149/341/342/323/307/354B/379/504/506/452 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners along with the co-accused persons were the member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly they attempted to murder Kartik Sen and Akshay Kumar Dutta in their wine shop and abused the wife and daughter of the informant and outraged their modesty and also assaulted the Navochand and Fakir Dutta and threatened that they will set fire to the house of the particular community of which the informant is a member and will commit rape upon the ladies of the family and they also called 100- 150 villagers from their families and terrorized the informant and his family members. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegation against the petitioners are false and the petitioner no.1 is a private teacher and petitioner no.2 is a farmer and a small quarrel has been exaggerated. It is then submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no.15 of the anticipatory bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioners being the members of an unlawful assembly in an organized manner terrorized the informant who is a member of a particular community and are living in small numbers surrounded the petitioners of the other community who are in large number in that particular locality and terrorized the informant and members of his community to set fire to their houses and commit rape upon the ladies of the family and in that process they also outraged the modesty of the wife and daughter of the informant and in view of the organized crime committed by the petitioners, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case to find out the modus operandi of the communal rioting and the petitioners are a threat to the communal harmony of the locality. 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 of being part of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons having terrorized the persons of a particular religion to burn their house and to commit rape upon the female family members of the informant as well as the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case as well as the potential of they being a threat to the communal harmony of the locality, 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-