Arvind Keshari @ Arvind Kumar Keshari and another vs State of Jharkhand

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.—Heard Mr. Abhay Kr Chaturvedy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioners have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Basistha Nagar P.S. Case No. 59 of 2014 corresponding to G. R. No. 1186 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307, 354, 504, 506, 341, 342 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegation of making an assault upon the body guard of the informant with a sword and katar by the petitioners, is falsified by the injury report which finds place at Paragraph � 42 of the case diary in which the doctor had opined that the lacerated wound and swelling injuries were suffered by the injured which was caused by the hard and blunt substance. It has further been submitted that there is nothing on the record to show as to how the Medical Officer had come to a findings that the injuries found on the person of the body guard of the informant was grievous in nature. It has also been submitted that several injuries were suffered from the side of the petitioners including the petitioners and a case was also instituted against the informant party as they were the aggressor.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that several co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in A.B.A. No. 3067 of 2015.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

From the First Information Report it appears that there is specific allegation against the petitioner no. 1 of assaulting with sword on the leg of the body guard whereas the petitioner no. 2 has assaulted with katar.

So far as the persons who were granted anticipatory bail are concerned, the case of the petitioners cannot be equated with those persons as there are specific allegation against these two petitioners of committing assault upon the body guard of the informant.

In view of the specific nature of allegation levelled against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners which is accordingly rejected.

However, if the petitioners surrender before the learned court below within three weeks their bail applications shall be considered without being prejudiced by this order.