MANJUR ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that his wife, who is respondent no. 7, is in illegal custody of respondent nos. 8 and 9, who are the father and brother of respondent no.7.

(2.) LEARNED Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that there is a criminal complaint filed against this very petitioner and he is an absconding accused. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the Investigating Officer is also present in the Court with police papers of the case registered at Doranda Police Station bearing Doranda P.S. Case No. 4 of 2013 dated 7th January, 2013. It is also submitted by the Additional Advocate General that the Investigating Officer of this Doranda P.S. Case No. 4 of 2013 also visited Jabalpur in the State of Madhya Pradesh, which is the address given in the writ petition, but, this petitioner is not traceable in its residential address for interrogation, neither he is available for further investigation. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the very same petitioner has preferred anticipatory bail petition being A.B.P. No. 172 of 2013, before the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XVI, Ranchi and it has been stated in the order dated 6th February, 2013 that the victim girl, who is present respondent no. 7 and the so called wife of the petitioner, was also present in the court and she has given her affidavit. It is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the Investigating Officer is unable to trace out respondent no. 7 and it is an apprehension that the said respondent no.7 is in the custody of the present petitioner, who is absconding. In the order passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in anticipatory bail petition, the learned court below has directed the present petitioner to surrender before the court below and pray for regular bail, but, this petitioner is such an adamant person that he has not surrendered so far till date. These submissions are made upon instructions given by the Investigating Officer, who is present before this Court.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner is also heavily relying upon page 24 of the present petition, but, the counsel for the petitioner miserably failed to read this document though he is relying upon.