Chandan Das vs State of Jharkhand

Heard the learned counsel for the respective sides. The defects, as pointed out by the office, are ignored. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Pathrol P.S. Case No. 104 of 2020, pending before the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar.

It has been alleged that the petitioner had taken away the son of the informant on the assurance to return him by evening. In the evening when the son of the informant did not return, the husband of the informant called the petitioner who asked him to come to the riverside. When the husband of the informant reached the place of occurrence he found his son lying unconscious in an injured state.

Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been delay of 10 days in institution of the F.I.R. It has also been stated that the son of the informant had met with an accident and it was in good faith, the petitioner had informed the informant, but the informant did not intimate the police about the accident and had lodged the F.I.R. after ten days without there being any reasonable explanation for such delay. It has further been submitted that the victim had suffered two simple injuries and one injury on the head which was result of the accident. It has also been stated that in course of investigation not a single witness has stated about the presence of the petitioner or the fact that the petitioner had fled away from the place

of occurrence.

Learned APP as well as the learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Mr.Gupta, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the victim is still in a coma.

It appears from a perusal of the F.I.R. that it was the petitioner who had taken away the son of the informant and even if what has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken to be true regarding the accident suffered by the son of the informant, the petitioner however never informed the informant and it was only when the informant called back the petitioner it was intimated that his son is lying in an unconscious state. Such facts circumstances strongly indicate about the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence and in such view of the matter, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

This application accordingly stands rejected.

However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned court below within a period of three weeks and prays for regular bail, the learned court below shall endeavour to get the bail application disposed of expeditiously without being prejudiced by this order of rejection.