KHAGAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners defect No. 9(1), as pointed out by office dated 2.6.2016, is ignored.

(2.) Present application has been filed under sections 438 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail as the petitioners have a reasonable apprehension of their arrest in connection with Harla P.S.Case No. 12 of 2016 corresponding to G.R Case No. 115 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under sections 342/323/147/149/353/337 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M,Bokaro Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there are six accused persons involved in the alleged crime and amongst them Bhagirath Mahto, who is listed as accused for provoking the villagers in commission of the alleged crime, has been granted anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court in A.B.A No. 1788 of 2016 on 27.5.2016. The learned counsel counsel further submitted that there are 200 villagers including the named accused person Bhagirath Mahto present in the alleged crime and it is not possible to determine who is held responsible in commission of the alleged crime and the allegations made in the FIR are vague,omnibus and general in nature, no specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioners . The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of such allegations, no case under section 352 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners can be made out.