Jharkhand High Court
Bhim Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 18 October, 2021
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 7664 of 2021
Bhim Kumar ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Awnish Shankar ,Adv.
For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri ,Addl. P.P.
02 / 18.10.2021Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Barhi P.S. Case No. 140 of 2019 registered under Sections 147/448/341/323/354(B)/499/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the villagers including the petitioner forcibly tonsured the head of the informant and Gudiya Devi with help of machine and put lime mark on their head and thereafter put garland of sleeper on their neck and paraded them in the village and when her husband opposed the act of the petitioner and the co-accused persons, they assaulted her husband and told them to leave the village. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are false and general and omnibus in nature. Drawing attention of this Court to FIR of Barhi P.S. Case No.139 of 2019 also lodged by the informant one day prior to lodging this case alleging that one Ramesh Dubey who was blackmailing her for six months attempted to outrage her modesty, it is submitted that the allegation that the petitioner and the co-villager ill-treated her because of said relationship with Ramesh Dubey is highly improbable. It is then submitted that co-accused persons, with similar allegations, have already been given the privileges of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 25.09.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.5565 of 2019. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay Rs.10,000/- that is Rs.5,000/- each as ad interim victim compensation to the informant and Gudiya Devi without prejudice to his defence in this case and he undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case and also undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the informant or Gudiya Devi in any manner during the pendency of the case nor he will do any act, deed or thing which may lead the informant or Gudiya Devi to leave the village. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on depositing two set of demand drafts of Rs.5,000/- each drawn in favour of each of the victims namely the informant-Mamta Devi and Gudiya Devi as ad interim victim compensation and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag in connection with Barhi P.S. Case No.140 of 2019 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and also undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the informant or Gudiya Devi in any manner during the pendency of the case nor will do any act, deed or thing which may lead the informant or Gudiya Devi to leave the village and subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. In case the petitioner deposits the ad interim victim compensation amount, the court below is directed to issue notice to the informant-Mamta Devi and Gudiya Devi and hand over the said demand draft to them, after proper identification.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-