Jharkhand High Court upholds the principle that specific and direct allegations combined with criminal antecedents justify denial of anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The decision aligns with existing precedent and serves as binding authority on subordinate courts in Jharkhand.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | A.B.A./5235/2025 of RAM KUMAR RAY ALIAS BHAIRAV YADAV Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND |
| CNR | JHHC010286592025 |
| Date of Registration | 04-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Rejected |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Jharkhand |
| Type of Law | Criminal—Anticipatory Bail under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 |
| Questions of Law | Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when there are direct allegations and criminal antecedents. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The application for anticipatory bail was rejected since the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR with direct allegations of demanding levy and assault resulting in injury, and also possessed a criminal antecedent. The Court held that in such circumstances, the privilege of anticipatory bail ought not to be granted. The discretion to grant or refuse anticipatory bail is to be exercised with regard to the seriousness of allegations and antecedents. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
FIR alleges the petitioner demanded levy, assaulted the informant inside an office, and caused a head injury; petitioner has criminal antecedent. The allegation includes presence at the scene of offence; petitioner claimed impossibility of being at two locations based on two FIRs. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Jharkhand |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Court clarified that where direct and specific allegations are present in the FIR and the accused has criminal antecedents, anticipatory bail should be refused.
- Defense arguments based solely on alleged impossibility of presence, without strongly rebutting direct allegations or antecedent record, are unlikely to succeed.
- Practitioners handling anticipatory bail under BNS, 2023 should provide compelling reasons addressing both merits and antecedents when such allegations exist.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the FIR, noting the petitioner was named with direct and specific allegations: demand of levy, assault inside an office, and injury caused to the informant.
- The Court considered the criminal antecedent of the petitioner as a further aggravating factor militating against the grant of anticipatory bail.
- The Judge exercised judicial discretion, stating that in light of these factors, anticipatory bail privilege was not justified.
- The defense raised the point of competing FIRs and impossibility of presence in two locations, but the Court gave primacy to the substantive, specific allegations and antecedent record.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Asserted that the allegation is false.
- Emphasized that two FIRs were lodged and claimed that being present at two different places simultaneously was impossible.
- Sought anticipatory bail on these grounds.
State
- Opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Pointed out that the petitioner has a criminal antecedent.
Factual Background
The petitioner was apprehending arrest pursuant to Balidih P.S. Case No. 50/2025, registered under Sections 127(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 308(3), 303(2), 109, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. FIR records that the petitioner demanded levy and assaulted the informant inside an office, resulting in a head injury. Petitioner submitted that he could not have been present at two places given two FIRs. The application was for anticipatory bail.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court considered the relevant penal provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as invoked in the FIR.
- The judgment turned on judicial discretion under the criminal procedure framework for anticipatory bail, with weight accorded to direct allegations and criminal antecedents.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms existing principles regarding anticipatory bail and the significance of specific direct allegations and antecedents.