Jharkhand High Court
Dilip Kumar ? Dilip Kumar Gupta vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 December, 2012
Author: D.N.Upadhyay
Bench: D.N.Upadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A.No. 2999 of 2011
Dilip Kumar @ Dilip Kumar Gupta. ... ... ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Sanjay Kumar Dubey. ... ... ...Opp. Parties
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate.
For the State: A.P.P.
For the O.P.No.2: Mr. Radhe Shyam Pandey, Advocate.
13/ 06.12.2012The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 147/148/149/341/342/323/420/452/467/468/504/506 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.
It reveals from the written report that Shop No.13 situated within Club Complex, Ranchi was taken by the informant and his brother on rent from petitioner and they have been running a garment shop. After some dispute arose with regard to eviction of the premises whereafter the accused persons after forming unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon forcefully evicted the informant from the said shop premises and also taken away all the articles kept in the shop.
It is submitted that for the same and similar incident firstly this informant has filed a Complaint Case but he did not appear for his examination on S.A. Thereafter his brother Ajay Kumar Dubey has filed Chutia P.S. Case No. 85 of 2011 on 06.04.2011 for the same and similar incident with same allegations and again the present informant has lodged another case for the same incident on 12.04.2011.
Admittedly, the incident took place on 06.11.2010 and this case has been lodged after about five months and delay has not been explained. It is a matter between landlord and tenant for which civil litigation is also going on.
Learned Counsel appearing for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner has been pursuing the matter after forceful eviction and that caused delay in lodging this F.I.R.
I have gone through the document placed before me. For the same and similar incident, two F.I.Rs. have been lodged by brother of the present informant. I do not find that delay of 5 months has been explained anywhere in the written report.
Considering all these aspects of the matter and also taking into consideration that in earlier case vide Chutia P.S. Case No. 85 of 2011, the petitioner has been granted bail and in this case too, petitioner is directed to surrender before the courtbelow within three weeks from today and if he does so he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/ ( Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief 2. Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No. 93 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No. 1897 of 2011, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[D.N.Upadhyay,J.] P.K.S.