Ram Jatan Saw And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 March, 2016

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Ram Jatan Saw And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 March, 2016

Bench: Amitav K. Gupta

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                  A.B.A. No. 4364 of 2015
                                        --------
           1. Ram Jatan Sao, son of late Dasai Saw
           2. Shankar Sao
           3. Sunil Sao
           4. Akela Sao
           5. Santosh Sao
              No. 2 to 5 all sons of Jatan Saw, all resident of village Karar Tola,
              Chaktand, PO and PS Panki District Palamau                  ....Petitioners
                                                 Versus
           The State of Jharkhand                                    .... Opposite Party
                                      -----------
           CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
           For the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate
           For the State        : A. P. P.
                                        --------
04/01.03.2016

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner are apprehending their arrest in connection with Panki P.S. Case No. 83 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case no. 1391 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 341, 380, 452 and 120B of the I.P.C. and under sections 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, pending in the court learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioners and the informant are agnates and they have been falsely implicated in the present case on account of family dispute; that it would be evident that the allegation of assault and labeling the informant as Daain is omnibus and the offence under sections 380, 352 of I.P.C. and 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practice Act is not made out against the petitioners.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed and submitted that the witnesses have supported the occurrence and in para-26 of the case diary it has been mentioned that the injury sustained by the informant is grievous in nature.

Heard. Perused the materials on record.

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not deem it proper to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

The petitioners are directed to surrender in the court below within two weeks from the date of this order and the court below shall pass necessary order on merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Amitav K. Gupta, J.) Tarun

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court