Jharkhand High Court
Hare Ram Pandey @ Hare Ram Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 5 December, 2019
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 8432 of 2019
------
Hare Ram Pandey @ Hare Ram Pandey ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.R.S. Singh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Vipul Divya, Addl. P.P.
------
Order No.02 Dated- 05.12.2019 Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Mirzachouki P.S. Case No.65 of 2019 (G.R. No. 263 of 2019) registered under sections 302/120B/379 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of Arms Act.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. P.P. for the State.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with one Badri Singh has shot dead the deceased Pappu Mohali. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner is not named in the FIR and in the FIR, the wife of Pappu Mohali has named the persons who are responsible for murder of Pappu Mohali and the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of Mithun Kumar Noniya who himself is also not named in the FIR. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner 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 submitted that in paragraph no.66 of the case diary, the confessional statement of co- accused Mithun Kumar Noniya is recorded wherein he has categorically stated that the petitioner is a notorious of the criminal and used to collect extortion amount from the truck drivers along with deceased and he has hatched up a conspiracy to eliminate Pappu Mohali by murdering him to have single hand to access of all the extortion amount and accordingly shot dead the deceased. It is further submitted that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner his custodial interrogation is highly essential during the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of direct allegation against the petitioner of having shot dead the deceased Pappu Mohali and the requirement of his 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 petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Gunjan-