P.P.BHATT, J. - (1.) THE present anticipatory bail application is filed under Sections 438 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail as the petitioners are having reasonable apprehension of their arrest in connection with Ghaghra P.S. Case No. 98 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 1133 of 2013 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 363, 365, 366A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gumla.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and perused the F.I.R. and other papers annexed to this application. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and have not committed any offence as alleged and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that from bare reading of the FIR as well as the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, prima facie, it appears that there are no ingredients of the alleged offence against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that similarly situated co -accused, namely, Shekh Mumtaz i.e. the father of the main accused, has been granted regular bail in BA No. 397 of 2014 vide order dated 15.4.2014. By referring the copy of order dated 15.4.2014, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that while considering the bail of Shekh Mumtaz, this Court considered the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which, the victim girl has not made any allegation against Shekh Mumtaz. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that similar is the case of the present petitioners against them, no allegation has been made in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submissions has also referred to and relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 and in paras 91 and 93 of the said decision the parameters for grant of regular bail and anticipatory bail are similar to that of the present case. It is also submitted that similarly situated co -accused, Shekh Mumtaz, has been granted bail in BA No. 397/2014 vide order dated 15.4.2014 and, therefore, the case of the present petitioners may also be considered for grant of their anticipatory bail.
(3.) LEARNED APP opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submitted that the petitioners are named in the FIR and there are direct allegations against them having involvement in the alleged offence and, therefore, looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, the petitioners may not be enlarged on anticipatory bail.;