IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.6178 of 2024
------
1. Rohit Mishra @ Chhotu Mishra
2. Shashikant Pandey @ Chunmun Pandey .... .... …. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Pankaj Kumar Tiwari .... .... .... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Praful Jojo, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate
------ Order No.06 Dated- 08-01-2025 I.A. No.13834 of 2024
Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer for not pressing the instant anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner No.2- Shashikant Pandey @ Chunmun Pandey.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners on behalf of the petitioner No.2- Shashikant Pandey @ Chunmun Pandey, this anticipatory bail application stands rejected as not pressed for the petitioner No.2- Shashikant Pandey @ Chunmun Pandey. This interlocutory application stands disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) A.B.A. No.6178 of 2024 Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner No.1 namely Rohit Mishra @ Chhotu Mishra has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Nawabazar P.S. Case No.50 of 2024 registered under Section 308 (2), 308 (3), 308 (5), 109, 3 (5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioner No.1 namely Rohit Mishra @ Chhotu Mishra is that the
1
petitioner No.1 namely Rohit Mishra @ Chhotu Mishra, in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons demanded extortion by putting the victim in fear of death, on the point of pistol and attempted to murder the victim. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner No.1 namely Rohit Mishra @ Chhotu Mishra is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner No.1 namely Rohit Mishra @ Chhotu Mishra is also involved in three other cases but he is on bail on those cases. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner No.1 namely Rohit Mishra @ Chhotu Mishra be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State being assisted by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner No.1 namely Rohit Mishra @ Chhotu Mishra and submit that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner No.1 namely Rohit Mishra @ Chhotu Mishra is a hardened criminal and is involved in extortion in a habitual manner, there is every chance of the petitioner No.1 namely Rohit Mishra @ Chhotu Mishra tampering with the evidence and absconding as well as endangering the life of the opposite party No.2/informant. It is next submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner No.1 namely Rohit Mishra @ Chhotu Mishra is required for recovery of firearms and to find out the details of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner No.1 namely Rohit Mishra @ Chhotu Mishra ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner No.1 namely Rohit Mishra @ Chhotu Mishra, his criminal antecedent as well as 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 petitioner No.1 namely Rohit Mishra @ Chhotu Mishra be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the petitioner No.1 namely Rohit Mishra @ Chhotu Mishra is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Animesh/
2
Comments