Md. Sahil @ RDX vs State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard the parties.

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Bankmore (Bhuli) P.S. Case No.119 of 2023 registered under Section 25 (1-B) (a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner attempted to murder Anwar Khan @ Chaina Dablu by firing upon him and in this connection, Bankmore (Bhuli O.P.) Case No.116 of 2023 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that on the basis of confessional statement of the accused of the said case namely Faizan Ansari, one six round revolver and live cartridges along with fire cartridge were recovered and seized. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused persons. It is also submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons attempted to murder Anwar Khan @ Chaina Dablu by firing upon him and caused injuries to him who is underwent treatment in a hospital at Durgapur, hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case and for recovery of other fire arms. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, his criminal antecedent 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 privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.