Jharkhand High Court
Chunnu Ganjhu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 February, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT R ANCHI
B.A.No. 6812 of 2014
Chunnu Ganjhu. ... ... ... ...Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand. ... ... ... ...Opp. Party
-------------
COR AM: THE HONE'BLE MR . JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
For the Petitioner: Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, Advocate.
For the State: A.P.P.
-------------
06/06.02.2015The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 147/148/149/323/324/307/353/124(A) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25 (1-b)a/26/27/35 of the Arms Act, Section ¾ of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 17 (I) (ii) of the C.L.A. Act. in connection with Simaria P.S. Case No. 81/2003, corresponding to G.R.No.705/2003, pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Chatra.
It reveals from the F.I.R. that after receiving secret information that extremist of Peoples War Group have assembled and they were holding a meeting, the police party proceeded. When they reached at village Sati Tarn Sarouna and were trying to surround the accused persons, they received firing from the side of extremist. In the incident 2-3 constables have sustained injuries. In reply the police also showered bullets and exchange of firing took place for some time. Thereafter accused persons started disappearing within the forest. After firing was over, the place of occurrence which was situated near the house of present petitioner was searched and from there Magazine, A.K. 47, Pitthu Bag, Carbine, Cartridges in huge quantity, M.C.C. literature, uniform used by the extremist and other articles as per seizure list have been recovered. In the counter firing, one of the extremist Prayag Jee was killed. During interrogation, it transpired that the meeting was going on in the house of present petitioner.
It is submitted that name of petitioner does not appear as accused in the formal F.I.R. As per the report submitted, the petitioner does not have criminal antecedent within Simaria Police Station. No injury report is available in the case diary to justify the contention that police persons had also sustained injuries.
2.Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that name of this petitioner is appearing in the body of the F.I.R. After the incident, the house of petitioner was raided but he was found absconding. Processes were also issued from the Court for securing attendance of the petitioner but he remained absconding and lastly he has appeared before the Court in the year 2014 in a case which was instituted in the year 2003.
From perusal of the case diary, it appears that extremist activities on the date of incident was moving in and around the house of present petitioner and the witnesses have also stated that meeting of the extremist was going on in the house of this petitioner.
Considering aforesaid aspect of the matter, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Hence his prayer for bail stands rejected.
[D.N.Upadhyay,J.] P.K.S.