Jharkhand High Court
Nijam Sah vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 February, 2013
Author: D.N.Upadhyay
Bench: D.N.Upadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 4155 of 2012
1 Yusuf Mian
2 Jaituna Khatun
3. Ashia @ Aisha Khatun
4. Rakiba Khatun .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
For the petitioner (s): Mr. yogesh Modi
For the opposite party : Addl.P.P.
26.02.2013Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.
This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners in connection with Chandwara PS case No. 47 of 2012 for the offence registered under sections 147/148/23/324/307 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioners caused assault to the informant party on the point of measuring their respective land.
It is submitted that Shekhawat Ansari against whom there is allegation of assault, has been granted anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court vide ABA No. 26 of 2013.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. Since the main assailant has been enjoying privilege of bail, all the petitioners above named are directed to appear/ surrender before the court below within a period of three weeks positively from the date of this order and on their surrender, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) III, Koderma, in connection with Chandwara PS case No. 47 of 2012 ( GR No. 617 of 2012), subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 4205 of 2012
1. Mritunjay Kumar
2. Kavita Sinha .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
For the petitioner (s): Mr. Kalyan Banerjee For the opposite party : Addl.P.P. 26.02.2013 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.
This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners in connection with Dhanbad PS case No. 929 of 2012 for the offence registered under sections 323/379/497/498/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Petitioners has been prosecuted for causing torture and treating the informant with cruelty for want of more dowry. Belongings of the informant have also been taken away by the accused persons.
It is submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and petitioner no.1, who is husband, is now ready to take back the informant to her matrimonial home.
Learned counsel for the informant supports the compromise arrived at between the parties.
Since the matter has been settled between the spouses, both the petitioners above named are directed to appear/ surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks positively from the date of this order and on their surrender, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Dhanbad, in connection with Dhanbad PS case No. 929 of 2012 ( G.R. No. 3647 of 2012), subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. as also on the conditions that (i) the date of surrender by the petitioners must be communicated to the informant prior in time, so that the informant may remain present in the court below (ii) petitioner no.1, after acceptance of his bail bond, shall take the informant with him from the court itself (iii) petitioners with the informant shall attend the court below regularly on the dates falling within next six months and the learned court below shall observe conduct of the spouses.
Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 4209 of 2012
Siri Gope .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
For the petitioner (s): Mr. K.S. Nanda
For the opposite party : Addl.P.P.
26.02.2013 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the State.
This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner in connection with Ghaghra case No. 26 of 2012 for the offence registered under sections 363/365/372/323 of the Indian Penal Code, section 16 of the Bounded Labour Act and Section 25 and 26 of the Inter State Human Trafficking Act.
It reveals from FIR that the informant and his wife at the instance of the petitioner left home to get job at Ranchi. The informant and his wife accompanied the petitioner up to Sisai from where the petitioner disappeared and the informant and his wife were given in the company of Amit Sah who took them to Delhi and produced them before a placement agency and from there they were employed at two different places. Since the informant did not know whereabouts of his wife, he has lodged this case.
It is submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. has raised no allegation against this petitioner save and except on the assurance she left home to have job. She was accordingly employed at Delhi, but was not satisfied; as a result, she returned back. Further more, the petitioner did not accompany the victim or her husband upto Delhi.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. Considering above aspects of the matter, the petitioner above named is directed to appear/ surrender before the court below within a period of three weeks positively from the date of this order and on his surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of lerned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gumla, in connection with Ghaghra case No. 26 of 2012 (G. R No. 384 of 2012), subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 4214 of 2012
Ashutosh Kumar @ Ashu Kumar .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
For the petitioner (s): Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha For the opposite party : Addl.P.P. 26.02.2013 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner in connection with Garhwa PS case No. 169 of 2010 for the offence registered under sections 386/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
It reveals from written report that some unknown miscreants by making a call on the mobile of the informant, demanded rangdari to the tune of Rs. one lakh and also threatened him to kill. After ½ an hour, three boys came on a motor cycle to the shop of the informant to collect rangdari, but they fled away after seeing people coming. During investigation, these three boys who fled away, were apprehended by the police and they disclosed names of their associate as Ashutosh Dubey who fled away.
It is submitted that the informant has clearly stated in the written report that only three boys had come to the shop to collect rangdari and those three boys were chased by the police and were apprehended. If such version of the informant is true, question of 4th person does not arise at all. Save and except confession, there is nothing against the petitioner in the case diary.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. Considering above aspects of the matter, the petitioner above named is directed to appear/ surrender before the court below within a period of three weeks positively from the date of this order and on his surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Garhwa, in connection with Garhwa PS case No. 169 of 2010 (G R No. 647 of 2010), subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 4228 of 2012
Sanaul Mian @ Md Sanaullah .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
For the petitioner (s): Mr. J.S. Singh
For the opposite party : Addl.P.P.
26.02.2013 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the State.
This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner in connection with Balumath PS case No. 71 of 2012 for the offence registered under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.
It reveals from written report that some altercation took place between petitioner and the informant on the point of throwing and burning polythene garbage. In course of exchange of hot words, the petitioner pushed the father of the informant as a result of which, he fell down and became senseless. he was removed to hospital, where he was declared dead.
It is submitted that the petitioner never pushed the father of the informant. In course of exchange of hot words, he himself fell down and died due to cardiac respiratory failure.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. Considering above aspects of the matter, the petitioner above named is directed to appear/ surrender before the court below within a period of three weeks positively from the date of this order and on his surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned SDJM, Latehar, in connection with Balumath PS case No. 71 of 2012 ( GR No. 478 of 2012), subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 4171 of 2012
Nijam Sah @ Nizam Sah & others .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
For the petitioner (s): Mr. Jawed Sultan
For the opposite party : Addl.P.P.
26.02.2013 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
counsel for the State.
This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners in connection with B.S.City PS Case No. 209 of 2008 for the offence under sections 147/148/149/353/323/307/427 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Damage to Property Act and Section 3A of the Indian Official Secret Act, 1923.
It reveals from the written report that the petitioners and their associates formed an unlawful assembly and caused damage to the administrative building of the Bokaro Steel Plant. They have also assaulted the security guard and staff.
It is submitted that other co-accused having similar allegations have been granted anticipatory bail by order dated 08.05.2012 vide ABA No. 1203 of 2012 and order dated 13.9.2012 passed in ABA No. 2506 of 2012.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that these petitioners were identified from videography.
Since co-accused with similar allegations have been granted anticipatory bail as aforesaid, petitioners (1) Nijam Sah @ Nizam Sah (2) Fazle Imam (3) Ayub Ansari (4) Lalu Ansari, (5) Barik Ansari and (6) Md Murshid are directed to appear/ surrender before the court below within a period of three weeks positively from the date of this order and on their surrender, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of CJM, Bokaro, in connection with BS City PS case no. 209 of 2008 ( G R No. 940/2008), subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 4190 of 2012
Sanjay Ram @ Sanjay Kumar Kandhway .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
For the petitioner (s): Mr. Sabrata Bose
For the opposite party : Addl.P.P.
26.02.2013 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the State.
It reveals that the forest officials seized a truck loaded with coal extracted through illegal mining in protected forest. Accused persons appeared at the scene of occurrence and forcibly took away the truck.
It is submitted that initially, final report was submitted, but on the basis of the protest, cognizance was taken in the year 1999. It is submitted that the petitioner did not receive any summons and therefore, he did not appear earlier. He is innocent. At the relevant point of time, he was a student and, therefore, he had no concern with coal or the truck involved in this case.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. It is apparent that cognizance was taken in the year 1999, but the petitioner remained absconding for ten years. He moved for anticipatory bail before the learned court below in the year 2010 which was rejected by order dated 23.6.2010, but even then he did not appear and remained absconding and again moved for anticipatory bail which was again rejected by the learned court below by order dated 6.8.2012 and now this application for anticipatory bail.
Considering facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the petitioner, I do not feel inclined to grant him anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Giridih (T) PS case No. 257 of 1996 pending in the court of learned CJM, Giridih. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected and this application is dismissed.
Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. ............... of 201
............... .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
For the petitioner (s): Mr.
For the opposite party : Addl.P.P.
26.02.2013 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned counsel for the State.
This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners in connection with Complaint case No. ............. for the offence registered under sections .......... of the Indian Penal Code.
It reveals from ................
It is submitted that .....................
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. Considering matrimonial nature of the offence coupled with the fact that the husband has already been granted regular bail, the petitioner above named is directed to appear/ surrender before the court below within a period of three weeks positively from the date of this order and on his surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of ................. in connection with .........case No. ................ subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 22 of 2013
Shankar Layak @ Shankar Layek .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
For the petitioner (s): Mr. Parth S.A Swaroop Pati For the opposite party : Addl.P.P. 26.02.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
Petitioner is accused in connection with Nimdih PS case No. 40 of 2011 for the offence registered under sections 341/323/324/307/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
There is allegation in the FIR that the petitioner and his associates caused assault to the father of the informant; as a result, he died.
It is submitted that main assaulant is Birpi Layak @ Gorkha Layak. So far as this petitioner is concerned, he was simply accompanying other accused at the time of incident and other accused namely Shambhu Layak having similar allegation has been granted bail vide BA No. 6667 of 2012.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. Since other co-accused having similar allegation has been granted bail, petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Seraikella, in connection with S.T. No. 69 of 2012 .
Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 50 of 2013
1.Pramod Kumar @ Rahjul Yadav
2. Raj Mangal Noniya
3. Manohar Kunwar .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
For the petitioner (s): Ms. Nivedita Kundu
For the opposite party : Addl.P.P.
26.02.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned counsel for the State.
Petitioners are accused in connection with Bagodar
(Saiya) P.S. Case case No. 270 of 2012 for the offence registered
under sections 385/386 of the Indian Penal Code and sections
25(1b)A/26/35 of the Arms Act.
It reveals from fard beyan that the petitioners had assembled in a rented house to collect rangdari from mines owners. After receiving such information, house in question was raided and these petitioners with their associates were arrested. They were found in possession of arms and ammunition.
It is submitted that one of the co-accused Mithun Rana, having similar allegation has been granted bail by the Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih, by order dated 23.11.2012 passed in B.P. No. 915 of 2012 but prayer for bail of these petitioners has been rejected by him by order dated 17.12.2012 passed in B.P. No. 940 of 2012. These petitioners have remained in custody for a longer period than the accused Mithun Rana . No mines owner has come forward to say that rangdari was demanded by any accused.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. Since these petitioners have remained in custody for five months and one of the co-accused has been granted bail, these three petitioners above named are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Girididh, in connection with Bagodar ( Sariya) PS case No. 270 of 2012 ( G.R. No. 2338 of 2012).
It is a question to be inquired as to how the learned Principal Sessions Judge by order dated 23.11.2012 has granted bail to one of the co-accused Mithun Rana, but he has rejected prayer for bail of these petitioners, though allegation against all the accused is similar.
It is a matter to be inquired by the Registrar (Administration) for which copies of both the orders dated 23.11.2012 and 17.12.2012 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih in B.P. Nos. 915 and 940 of 2012 may be handed over to him and if he finds anything wrong, the matter may be placed before the Zonal Judge concerned.
Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 16 of 2013
Robin Chandra Das
@ Rabim Chandra Das @ Rabin Kumar Das .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
For the petitioner (s): Mr. Mukesh Kumar
For the opposite party : Addl.P.P.
26.02.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the State.
Petitioner is accused in connection with Siyaljori
( Bangaria O.P.) PS case No. 88 of 2012 pending in the court of learned CJM, Bokaro.
There is allegation against the petitioner that he along with his associates restrained the father of the informant and this petitioner caused injury on his head by means of tangi.
It is submitted that there was no intention to kill and, therefore, section 307 IPC is not applicable. The petitioner is in custody since 11.9.2012.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that depressed committed fracture was detected and that injury was grievous in nature and was caused on head by this petitioner.
Considering nature of allegation and the injury report, I do not feel inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail is rejected.
Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 38 of 2013
Mostmat Manmati Devi @ Mamnati Devi .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
For the petitioner (s): Ms. Renu Bala
For the opposite party : Addl.P.P.
26.02.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the State.
Petitioner is accused in connection with Latehar Mahila PS case No. 03 of 2012 pending in the court of learned CJM, Latehar.
It reveals from fard beyan that the deceased was subjected to torture by her husband and in laws and finally she was burnt alive.
It is submitted that the occurrence took place on 25.12.2011, but FIR was lodged on 1.2.2012 after delay of two months. There was no demand for dowry and therefore section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable. Petitioner being mother in law has been falsely implicated in this case.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that fard beyan of the informant was recorded at RIMS, Ranchi on 10.1.2012 just after death of the deceased and the delay occurred by the Police in sending fard beyan; as a result of which case was registered on 1.2.2012. He has also pointed out paragraphs 10 to 13 of the case diary in which witnesses have stated that the petitioner also participated in causing burn injuries to the deceased.
Considering all these aspects of the matter and the evidence collected, I do not feel inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail is rejected and this application is dismissed.
Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)