Jharkhand High Court
Bhola Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... ... on 17 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.4984 of 2022
------
1. Bhola Yadav
2. Om Prakash Yadav
3. Ramjee Yadav @ Shabnam Yadav .... .... .... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party
------
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anuradha Sahay, Addl.P.P
------
Order No.05 Dated- 17.08.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apprehending their arrest in connection with Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 305 of 2021 instituted under Sections 323, 324, 147, 148, 379, 354-B, 307, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.
It is alleged that on 25.12.2021 at about 4:00 pm, the dispute arose between parties for fetching water from hand-pump. It is further alleged that petitioner and his family members forming an unlawful assembly armed with axe assaulted the informant and her husband and bhainsur causing injury to them and called the informant daain and snatched her ornaments.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence at all as alleged in F.I.R. There was a sudden scuffle between the parties and there was exchange of assault from both parties for which an FIR was lodged by petitioner no.2 against the informant and others (Annexure-2). It is further submitted that in the case lodged by petitioner no.2 against the informant parties, they have been granted bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajmahal. The injured persons of this case have sustained simple injuries and there was no intention to kill anybody. In case of their arrest at the hands of police, prestige and reputation of the petitioners shall be ruined. It is further submitted that petitioners undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case and will not indulge in tampering with prosecution evidence and will abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court in the matter of granting anticipatory bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioners of assaulting the informant and causing serious injury on vital part of body dangerous to life. It is further submitted that petitioners have also outraged modesty of female inmates of informant party and called them daain. Hence, petitioners may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on record, I am inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court within four weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrendering, they will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned SDJM, Rajmahal in connection with Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 305 of 2021 with the condition that they will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish their mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that they will not change their mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Pappu/