Jagdish Prasad vs Union of India through General Manager, Telecom & Ors.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Sadar (Mesara) P.S. Case No.261/16, corresponding to G.R. No.3535/16, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149. 341, 342, 323, 436, 427, 506, 379, 307 of the IPC .

The present case has been registered on the basis of given written complaint by one Nuresha Khatoon, wherein it is alleged that on 20.6.2016 at 8.00 p.m, she heard hulla that one Nasim Ansari has murdered by unknown persons due to land dispute and after the said murdered crowd of villagers of village Nevari, comprising of 150-200 peoples having Lathi, Tangi, Gaita, Pharsa, Sword, Khukhari, Bhala and petrol came to the house of the informant exhorting to kill everyone and set on fire several houses by sprinkling petrol including the informant house due to which four motorcycles, two Maruti cars, household articles, ornaments and cash currency etc., in addition to the houses were also destroyed. Informant had given name of 41 persons including these petitioners in the F.I.R and about 150 unknown persons. It is further alleged that they had assaulted informant''s family and looted money, which was kept in the house.

On the basis of the aforesaid allegation the instant case has been registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that these petitioners are named in the F.I.R but there is no specific allegation against them and the allegation against these petitioners are general and omnibus and the petitioners have been falsely implicated due to village politics.

On the other hand learned APP has opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that it is heinous crime as several houses were set on fire committed by mob including these petitioners in brutal manner. It is further submitted that as per para nos. 12, 13, 14, 94, 96, 97, 109 of the case diary witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that prayer for anticipatory bail of several co-accused persons have been rejected vide order dated 02.02.2017 in ABA No.4696 of 2016 by this Court, hence these petitioners also does not deserve for anticipatory bail.

In view of the submission and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to admit the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.