Jharkhand High Court
Nagendra Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 June, 2013
Author: D.N. Upadhyay
Bench: D. N. Upadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 184 of 2013
Nagendra Yadav .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. UPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. M. L. Yadav
For the State : A. P. P.
---
4. 26.06.2013: The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307, 302, 124(A) and 120B IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 17(i)(ii) of C.L.A. Act I.P.C. and Section 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act in connection with Kunda P.S. Case No. 05 of 2005 (G.R. No. 638 of 2005), pending in the Court of CJM, Chatra.
It reveals that an occurrence took place in the year 2005 in which the MCC extremists killed some of the police person by using explosive substance as well as firearm. The involvement of the petitioner has come during investigation.
It is submitted that the D.I.G., C.I.D., had written a letter to the S.P., Chatra informing him that petitioner is innocent in this case. Furthermore some of the accused who faced trial have been acquitted.
On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the State has opposed the prayer.
I failed to understand under what capacity or under what provision of law, this D.I.G., C.I.D. vide Annexure-3 had written a letter to S.P., Chatra informing innocence of present petitioner. He was neither authorized to investigate into the matter nor he was supervising authority in this case.
Let a copy of this order along with Annexure-3 be sent to the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Jharkhand for taking appropriate action against such police officer who has dared to help accused of such a serious offence by going out of the way.
Now coming to the impugned order, it appears that prayer for bail made on behalf of the petitioner was rejected in the month of March, 2009. The case was instituted in the year 2005, but the 2. petitioner remained always absconding and did not appear even after issuance of process against him.
Considering all these aspects, I do not feel inclined to consider the prayer under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
(D.N. Upadhyay, J.) MK