Ajay Yadav And Others vs State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agarwal, learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Kenduadih (Gondudih O.P.) P.S. Case No.68 of 2023, registered for the alleged offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 448, 341, 323, 325, 354, 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.

Mr. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that prior to lodging of the present case, the FIR being Kenduadih (Gondudih OP) P.S. Case No.67 of 2023 was lodged by the father of petitioner nos. 5 to 7. He further submits that as a counter blast, the present case has been lodged. He also submits that there are general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioners may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail.

Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer on the ground that the petitioners are having criminal antecedent. He refers paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit and submits that the petitioners are having criminal antecedent and in most of the cases, Section 27 of the Arms Act is also involved.

It appears that there are case and counter cases between the parties. Further, paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit suggests that there are several cases against the petitioners.

In view of the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

However, if the petitioners surrender before the learned Court by way of filing regular bail petition, the same shall be decided in accordance with law, without prejudiced to this order.