CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Anil Ji @ Anil Bhuiyan vs State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 6 October 2023 · Citation: (2023) 10 JH CK 0009

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajesh Kumar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25(1b)(a), 26, 35 · Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 — Section 17 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 41(A), 82
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
A.B.A. No. 2607 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 314 words

Rajesh Shankar, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 25(1-b)(a)/26/35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has not committed any offence as alleged. He has not been named in the FIR. The entire allegation made against him is false, fabricated and concocted. Except disclosure of the apprehended co-accused, Kuldeep Yadav, nothing incriminating has been found by the prosecution against the petitioner so as to treat him a member of extremist organization. Hence, he may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P while referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, submits that in course of investigation, a notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C was duly served at the residential address of the petitioner as would be evident from paragraphs 89 & 98 of the case diary, however, the petitioner did not appear before the Investigating Officer. Moreover, he is evading his arrest and accordingly process under Section 82 Cr.P.C has been issued on 23.03.2023 by the concerned Court below. Under the said circumstance, the present anticipatory bail application is not maintainable. Subsequently, on 24.05.2023, the property of the petitioner has been attached treating him as a proclaimed offender and chargesheet has been submitted against him on 30.06.2023 under Sections 25(1-b)(a)/26/35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case particularly that the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed offender as well as keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged against him, I not am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

The petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail is accordingly dismissed.