Jharkhand High Court
Rekha Devi vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 4 February, 2011
Author: R.K. Merathia
Bench: R.K. Merathia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 944 of 2010
---
Rekha Devi Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & another Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Merathia
---
For the Petitioner: Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, Advocate
For the State: A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2: Mr. Rajiv Anand, Advocate
---
3.04.02.2011This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the O.P. No. 2 vide order dated 4.2.2010 passed in A.B.A. No. 314 of 2010..
It is submitted that the Husband / O.P. No. 2 is not keeping his words on which he has got anticipatory bail.
It appears that the petitioner was taken by her husband and was kept for sometime. Thereafter, allegations and counter allegations started between them. In my opinion, these are not the grounds for cancellation of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, prayer for cancellation of anticipatory bail is rejected.
Parties are directed to cooperate in the early conclusion of the trial. The trial court will proceed expeditiously. O.P. No. 2 / husband will appear in the trial court regularly.
With these observations and directions, this criminal miscellaneous application is disposed of.
(R.K. Merathia, J) Ranjeet/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 264 of 2011
---
Manoj Kumar Singh @ Guddu Singh
@ Manoj Singh @ Guddu Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand Opp. Party
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Merathia
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
For the State: A.P.P.
---
2.04.02.2011 Petitioner filed anticipatory bail application being A.B.A.
No. 2704 of 2009 which was dismissed on merits on 3.12.2009 and he was directed to surrender before the court below within two weeks and pray for regular bail which was to be considered on its own merits without being prejudiced by the order.
2. Now, it is submitted by Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the trial has been concluded and no evidence has come against the petitioner, rather it has come that the petitioner is innocent. He relied on (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 684 (Ravindra Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan). He further submitted that the petitioner was not bound to surrender in terms of the said order dated 3.12.2009 rejecting his anticipatory bail as such direction has been held to be only directorty by the Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Saxena (Supra).
3. The prosecution case, against the petitioner is that he is actively associated in the crime of murder. This is why his anticipatory bail was rejected. While rejecting anticipatory bail, direction to surrender and pray for bail, is issued, so that the accused may not evade investigation / trial, as was issued in this case, but he did not surrender and evaded the trial, which had to be split. Now after about 14 months of earlier rejection of anticipatory bail, petitioner is renewing the prayer saying that nothing has come against him during the trial.
4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the judgment of Ravindra Saxena (Supra) is of no help to the petitioner. This court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who evaded / absconded from trial. Accordingly, this second anticipatory bail is again rejected.
5. Petitioner is directed to surrender within two weeks and pray for bail failing which, the court concerned will take steps for his arrest.
(R.K. Merathia, J) Ranjeet/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 114 of 2011
---
Kamod Kumar Mandal Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand Opp. Party
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Merathia
---
For the Petitioner: Dr. (Mrs.) Amita Srivastava, Advocat
For the State: A.P.P.
---
2.04.02.2011 Petitioner is permitted to implead the complainant as
opposite party no. 2 in this anticipatory bail application in course of the day.
Issue notice to the newly added O.P. No. 2 as to why prayer made by the petitioner in this anticipatory bail application, should not be allowed. Requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D must be filed within one week, failing which this application shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench.
(R.K. Merathia, J) Ranjeet/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4523 of 2010
---
Chandrika Singh Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand Opp. Party
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Merathia
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
For the State: A.P.P.
---
2.04.02.2011 Petitioner filed anticipatory bail application vide A.B.A. No.
456 of 2009 in which case diary was called for on 1.8.2009. When the matter was again taken up on 3.12.2009, following order was passed.
"Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel, appearing for the the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw this anticipatory bail application without prejudice, saying that the petitioner has been granted interim relief in quashing application.
Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn."
2. Then, by the following order dated 4.2.2010, the said quashing application - Cr.M.P. No. 1011 of 2009 - was dismissed.
"By this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the First Information Report in Sundar Pahari P.S. Case No.31 of 2008 registered for the offence alleged to have been committed under Sections 409/420 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The aforesaid criminal case was registered on the basis of First Information Report lodged by District Welfare Officer, Godda alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner, who was the Block Welfare Officer of Sundar Pahari Block, was assigned the work for execution of 111 Biras Awas from the District Welfare Office, Godda under Birsa Awas Yojana. In the year 2001-02 to 2005-06, he was given advance by way of part-payment totalling Rs.33,75,000/- but failed to completely execute the work in spite of repeated notices given to him.
3. I have heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. T.N. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the informant- the District Welfare Officer, Godda.
4. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner in the capacity of Block Welfare Officer was assigned the work for execution of 111 Birsa Awas from the District Welfare Office under Birsa Awas Yojna and for execution of the work, a sum of Rs.33,75,000/- was paid to him. The allegation is that the petitioner either failed to execute the work or he has not completed the execution of the work and misappropriated the money. In the aforesaid premises, the allegations made in the First Information Report, on the face of it, constitute an offence under the Indian Penal Code. In such circumstances, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed.
5. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed."
3. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the said order dated 4.2.2010 is absolutely against the law and per incurium and it has to be ignored while considering this second anticipatory bail application. He relied on (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 684 (Ravindra Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan) 2010 (8) Supreme 353 (Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others and submitted that this second anticipatory bail application is maintainable. He further submitted that in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (Supra), the Supreme Court has laid down the principles of grant of anticipatory bail which squarely covers the case of the petitioner.
4. The said judgments relied on behalf of the petitioner, are of no help to him. The FIR in question was lodged far back on 14.8.2008 in which petitioner was named as the only accused. The allegations inter-alia are that the petitioner being the Block Welfare Officer defalcated about Rs. 33,75,000/- as he did not do the work against such advance. According to the petitioner, he has done the work of about Rs. 58.00 lakhs against such advance. The documents which were relied in the earlier anticipatory bail application were again relied on behalf of the petitioner. While dismissing his quashing application, as aforesaid, this court, interalia, observed that the allegations made in the FIR, on the face of it, constitute offence. The defence of the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage. The allegations against him are very serious specially when he is a Government servant. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below within two weeks from today and pray for regular bail failing which, the court concerned should take steps for his arrest, as he has already evaded the investigation / trial for a long time.
(R.K. Merathia, J) Ranjeet/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4512 of 2010
---
1. Binay Prasad @ Binay Keshari
2. Manjula Devi Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand Opp. Party
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Merathia
---
For the Petitioners: Mr. B.P. Tetarbe, Advocate
For the State: A.P.P.
---
2.04.02.2011 It appears that the anticipatory bail application filed on
behalf of the petitioners was dismissed as withdrawn on 8.12.2009 vide A.B.A. No. 2911 of 2009. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw in view of the observations made by the Sessions Judge. Petitioners were directed to surrender within two weeks and pray for regular bail to be considered on its own merits without being prejudiced by that order. It appears that without complying with the said order, petitioners again moved for quashing of the complaint and saying that the same is pending, this anticipatory bail application has been filed. It further appears that the petitioners are involved in other cases also with similar allegations.
In the circumstances, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed. Petitioners are directed to surrender before the court below within two weeks and pray for regular bail, failing which the court concerned will pass necessary orders for apprehending them.
(R.K. Merathia, J) Ranjeet/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3059 of 2010
---
Majhar @ Manjar Hussain @ Md. Manjar Hussain Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand Opp. Party
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Merathia
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate & Mr. P.A.N. Roy, Advocate For the State: A.P.P.
---
3.04.02.2011 Petitioner's anticipatory bail application was earlier rejected vide order dated 05.05.2010 passed in A.B.A. No. 471 of 2010.
It is submitted by Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is substantial change in the circumstances as stated in paragraph-19(2) of this bail application and therefore, petitioner has filed this anticipatory bail application again.
In my view, no fresh grounds are made out for reconsideration of the prayer for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. Petitioner is directed to surrender within two weeks and pray for regular bail.
(R.K. Merathia, J) Ranjeet/