Jharkhand High Court
Deonath Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 February, 2013
Author: D.N.Upadhyay
Bench: D.N.Upadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 2875 of 2012
Satyanarayan Goswami .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Jharkhand & another ... Opposite Parties
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
For the petitioner (s): Mr. Tarun Kumar Sinha
For the opposite party : Addl.P.P.
25.02.2013Heard 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 Complaint case No. 1437 of 2010 for the offence registered under sections 498A,323,379 of the Indian Penal Code.
Petitioner has been prosecuted for causing torture and treating the complainant with cruelty for want of more dowry. It is also alleged that the petitioner has arranged his second marriage with a lady, Saroj Toppo.
It is submitted that in the matrimonial suit filed for maintenance, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have decided to withdraw the case instituted by them against each other. Furthermore, this case has been lodged after 30 years of marriage.
Learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the compromise arrived at between the parties in the maintenance case, but submits that till date, she has not received a single coin.
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 Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih, in connection with complaint case No. 1437 of 2010 ( T.R. No. 1554 of 2012 ) subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C as also on the condition that the conditions enumerated in the order dated 13.12.2012 passed in Misc. Case. no.268 of 2010 shall be ensured within one month from the date of furnishing bail bond, failing which bail granted to the petitioner shall automatically stand cancelled.
Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 4787 of 2012
Awadhesh Vishwakarma and others .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Jharkhand & another ... Opposite Parties
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
For the petitioner (s): Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari For the opposite party : Addl.P.P. 25.02.2013 Counsel for the petitioner is directed to implead the complainant as opposite party in this case.
Issue notice to opposite party no.2 for which requisites etc under registered cover with A/d as well as under ordinary process must be filed within one week.
Till the next date of listing, petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with complaint case no. 1121 of 2011 pending in the court of learned CJM, Garhwa.
Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9936 of 2012
1. Raisen Hansda
2. Chhoto Soren
3. Sukhlal Soren .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
For the petitioner (s): Mr. R.P.Mukherjee For the opposite party : Addl.P.P. 25.02.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.
Petitioner are accused in connection with Ghatshila P.S. case No. 14 of 2011 for the offence registered under sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
It reveals from FIR that the deceased was singing and dancing in the village with the petitioners on the occasion of Saraswati Pooja. He returned back home, had his meal and again went out, but did not return alive. On the following morning, dead body of the deceased was recovered.
It is submitted that save and except confessional statements of the petitioners, there is nothing on record. Deceased was not seen in the company of these petitioners after he left home after having his meal. Petitioners are in custody since about two years and the witnesses examined till date have turned hostile.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that on the basis of confession of the accused persons, tangi used in commission of murder was recovered. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the contention made on behalf of the petitioners finds support from evidence collected in the case diary.
Considering above aspects of the matter, all the three petitioners above named are 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 District & Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatshila, in connection with S.T. No. 311 of 2011 .
Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 10035 of 2012
Tarni @ Tarani Das .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
For the petitioner (s): Mr. A.K.Sahani
For the opposite party : Addl.P.P.
25.02.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the State.
Petitioner is accused in connection with Bundu PS
case No. 07 of 2012 for the offence registered under sections 384/387/436/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It reveals that the informant had been receiving calls from unknown miscreants and they have been demanding rangdari to the tune of rupees two lakhs. During investigation, mobile set(s) used for making calls have been recovered from possession of accused Tarak nath Gorai who confessed his guilt and disclosed names of this petitioner and other accused. Accused persons had also tried to set the house of the informant on fire after he left home due to fear.
It is submitted that co-accused Mantu Ganak @ Hanu Ganak and Bhaju Ram @ Rajesh, having more or less similar allegations, have been granted bail vide BA No. 8425 of 2012. Petitioner is not named in the FIR and he has been falsely implicated on the confession of Taraknanth Gorai. He is in jail custody since one year.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. Considering above aspects of the matter, 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 Addl. Judicial Commissioner III, Ranchi, in connection with S.T. No. 432 of 2012 .
Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9997 of 2012
Kedar Kalundia .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
For the petitioner (s): Mr. Nagmani Tiwari For the opposite party : Addl.P.P. 25.02.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
Petitioner is accused in connection with Muffasil ( Pandrasali) PS case No. 55 of 2012 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chaibasa.
It reveals from fard beyan that the accused had gone to the site of the informant to extort money. It is alleged that the accused have been demanding rangdari from the Concern to whom contract to construct a bridge was given. On the date of incident, Venketeshwar Naida, Senior Supervisor of the said company, has been shot at by the miscreants. During investigation, complicity of this petitioner came in light and on his confession, a pistol was recovered.
It is submitted that co-accused Gobind Haibura and Sikandar Jamuda have been granted bail vide B A No. 7888 of 2012 and 9762 of 2012 respectively.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. It is not evident from the earlier orders that the case diary was considered. The case diary produced before me clearly indicates that this accused was accompanying the main accused. The petitioner is having criminal antecedents and as many as seven cases are pending against him. Further more, on the basis of confession of the present petitioner, pistol was also recovered.
Considering above aspects of the matter, I do not feel inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer is rejected.
Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 10069 of 2012
Deonath Mahto .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
For the petitioner (s): Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha For the opposite party : Addl.P.P. 25.02.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
Petitioner is accused in connection with Barkagaon PS case No. 45 of 2012 ( S. T 490/2012) pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Hazaribagh.
It reveals from FIR that the father of the informant was abducted for ransom.
It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He is a resident of the same village and is in custody since 20.4.2012.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the victim in his statement recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has named the petitioner who kidnapped him for ransom.
Considering evidence collected by the investigating officer and direct allegation against the petitioner, I do not feel inclined to grant him bail. Accordingly, prayer is rejected and this application is dismissed.
Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 10151 of 2012
Suman Bhengra @ Dhumka Bhengra .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
For the petitioner (s): Mr. A.K.Chaturvedy For the opposite party : None 25.02.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
Petitioner is accused in connection with Torpa PS case No. 18 of 2012 ( S.T 738/2012) pending in the court of learned Judl. Commissioner II, Khunti.
It reveals from FIR that Sukra Munda was killed for which the informant received information from Sanika Bhengra. Thereafter, dead body of Sukra was located and case against this petitioner and other accused was registered.
It is submitted that one of the accused Deepak Hembram has been granted bail by a Bench of this Court. Neither informant nor Sanika Bhengra is an eye witness to the occurrence. Before statement of so-called eye witness Daya Hembram was recorded, this petitioner was apprehended. It is also submitted that one of the accuse was killed by the villagers prior to the present incident.
I have gone through the case diary in which in para 31, statement of eye witness Daya Hembram has been recorded. He has stated that the petitioner and his associates caused murder of the deceased .
Considering evidence collected by the investigating officer and direct allegation against the petitioner, I do not feel inclined to grant him bail. Accordingly, prayer is rejected and this application is dismissed.
Ambastha/- ( D.N.Upadhyay,J.)