Jharkhand High Court
Jugal Kishore vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr. ... ... on 12 October, 2020
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 4868 of 2020
Jugal Kishore ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ... Opposite Parties
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Navnit Prakash, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl. PP
02 / 12.10.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Navnit Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner
personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with complaint case
no. 1553 of 2019 registered under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal
Code and section 3/4 D.P.Act.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
allegations against the petitioner are all false and those allegations are
general and omnibus in nature, hence, the petitioner be given the
privilege of anticipatory bail.
Let notice be issued to Opposite Party No. 2. The petitioner is
directed to file requisites of notice through both processes i.e. under
registered post with A/D as well as through ordinary process within two
weeks, failing which, this anticipatory bail application shall stand
dismissed without further reference to the Bench.
List this case on 03.12.2020.
Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as
discussed above, I am inclined to pass an interim order of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner provisionally till 03.12.2020. In case of the petitioner
being arrested by the police on or before 03.12.2020, the petitioner shall be
released on bail provisionally on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the officer concerned in connection with
complaint case no. 1553 of 2019 subject to the conditions laid down under
section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 4867 of 2020
Som Shankar Mahapatra ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ... Opposite Parties
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Achinto Sen , Adv.
For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan , Addl. PP
02 / 12.10.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Achinto Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner personally
undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Ratu P.S. case
no. 67 of 2019 registered under Sections 498A/406/420 of the Indian
Penal Code and section 3/4 D.P.Act.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
allegations against the petitioner are all false and those allegations are
general and omnibus in nature, hence, the petitioner be given the
privilege of anticipatory bail.
Let notice be issued to Opposite Party No. 2. The petitioner is
directed to file requisites of notice through both processes i.e. under
registered post with A/D as well as through ordinary process within two
weeks, failing which, this anticipatory bail application shall stand
dismissed without further reference to the Bench.
List this case on 03.12.2020.
Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as
discussed above, I am inclined to pass an interim order of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner provisionally till 03.12.2020. In case of the petitioner
being arrested by the police on or before 03.12.2020, the petitioner shall be
released on bail provisionally on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the officer concerned in connection with Ratu
P.S. case no. 67 of 2019 subject to the conditions laid down under section
438 (2) Cr. P.C.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 4863 of 2020
Shyam Sunder Yadav ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ... Opposite Parties
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy , Adv.
For the State : Mr. Rajendra Ram Ravi Das, Addl. PP
02 / 12.10.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner
personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with complaint case
no. 2381 of 2018 registered under Sections 498A/323/379 of the Indian
Penal Code.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
allegations against the petitioner are all false and those allegations are
general and omnibus in nature, hence, the petitioner be given the
privilege of anticipatory bail.
Let notice be issued to Opposite Party No. 2. The petitioner is
directed to file requisites of notice through both processes i.e. under
registered post with A/D as well as through ordinary process within two
weeks, failing which, this anticipatory bail application shall stand
dismissed without further reference to the Bench.
List this case on 03.12.2020.
Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as
discussed above, I am inclined to pass an interim order of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner provisionally till 03.12.2020. In case of the petitioner
being arrested by the police on or before 03.12.2020, the petitioner shall be
released on bail provisionally on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the officer concerned in connection with
complaint case no. 2381 of 2018 subject to the conditions laid down
under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 4890 of 2020
Ravi Agarwal @ Ravi Kumar Agarwal @ Ravi Kumar Gangesaria
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ... Opposite Parties
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : M/s. P. Lala , A. Joshi, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Addl. PP
For the opposite party no. 2 : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Adv.
02 / 12.10.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to
remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks
after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Mahila P.s. case
no. 15 of 2020 registered under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and section ¾ D.P.Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the husband
of the informant is treating her with cruelty and demanding dowry. It is
then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and
those allegations are general and omnibus in nature. It is jointly
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the opposite party no. 2 that both the petitioner and the opposite party
no. 2 are ready and willing to resume conjugal life and both the
petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 will appear before the trial court
on 23.11.2020 and on that day, the petitioner will take the opposite party
no. 2 to his house and will keep and maintain her with full dignity and
honour as his lawful wife. It is next submitted that the petitioner is
ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case hence, the
petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
the petitioner.
Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
ten weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
bail on satisfying the court concerned that the petitioner has taken the
opposite party no. 2 to his house and he is keeping and maintaining the
opposite party no. 2 with full dignity and honor as his lawful wife and
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
JMFC, Dhanbad in connection with Mahila P.S. case no. 15 of 2020
subject to the condition that the petitioner will continue to keep and
maintain the opposite party no. 2 with full dignity and honor as his lawful
wife and will co-operate with the Investigation of the case and will appear
before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will
submit mobile number and photocopy of Aadhaar card at the time of
surrender in the court below with an undertaking not to change mobile
number during the pendency of the case along with the other conditions
laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
zIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 4889 of 2020
Ujjwal Pathak @ Ujjwal Kumar Pathak ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar , Adv.
For the State : Mr. V. Ray , Addl. PP
02 / 12.10.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint case
no. 134 of 2020 registered under Sections 9 read with section 51 of the
Wild Life (Protection ) Act, 1972.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has hunted one
peacock inside the forest area as mentioned in a Twitter message. It is
then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and
the petitioner is no way concerned with the case and without verifying
the fact of a Twitter message, this case has been instituted falsely. It is
further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Forest
Range Officer, who has filed the complaint, is not competent to file
complaint within the meaning of section 55 of Wild Life (Protection) Act,
1972. It is next submitted that the petitioner and the co-accused were
witnesses in Kisko P.S. case no. 20 of 2019, hence at the instance of the
accused persons of that case, this false case has been foisted. It is further
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a
resident of the area nearby the forest and peacock and other wild animals
used to come to village, hence photograph of the petitioner with a
peacock does not mean that the petitioner has hunted the peacock. It is
further submitted that nothing has been seized from the possession of
petitioner and the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient
security including cash security, hence, the petitioner be given the
privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
the petitioner.
Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
bail on furnishing cash security of Rs. 5,000/- and furnishing bail bond of
Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Lohardaga in
connection with Complaint case no. 134 of 2020 subject to the condition
that the petitioner will along with the other conditions laid down under
section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 4887 of 2020
Manjeet Kumar ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Ms. Nirupama , Adv.
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar , Addl. PP
02 / 12.10.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Ms. Nirupama, learned counsel for the petitioner personally
undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Domchanch
P.S. Case No.09 of 2020 registered under sections 147/148/149/
307/353/427/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code, Rule 13 of Jharkhand
Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage)
Rules, 2017, Section 54 of J.M.M.C, Rule, 2004 and under Section 3 of
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the S.D.O.,
Koderma along with other police officers were making surprise checking
of the vehicle carrying mineral without transport challan. It is further
submitted that the allegation against the petitioner are all false and the
petitioner being the owner of vehicle bearing registration no.JH-12L-
8148 had no knowledge about his vehicle being involved in any illegal
activity. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal
antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 10 of the
anticipatory bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioner is
ready and willing to furnish sufficient security including cash security
and undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case and co-
accused with similar allegations has already been granted privilege of
anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated 07.10.2020 passed in
ABA no. 4726 of 2020. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given
the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail.
Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as
discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above
named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in
the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the
date of this order, he shall be released on bail on depositing cash
security of Rs.10,000/- and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Koderma, in connection with
Domchanch P.S. Case No.09 of 2020 with the condition that the
petitioner will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear
before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will
furnish his mobile numbers and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court
below with the undertaking that he will not change his mobile number
during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down
under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 4886 of 2020
Sumant Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Lily Sahay , Addl. PP
For the informant : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Adv.
02 / 12.10.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner
personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Chutia P.S. case
no. 183 of 2019 registered under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal
Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has received
demand draft of Rs. 18,25,000/- from the bank upon the informant taking
the loan from the bank but he is not handing over the articles for which,
he furnished quotations and received the demand drafts directly from
the bank. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner
are all false. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner is all along ready and willing to hand over the articles
for which, he issued the quotation and received the demand draft of Rs.
18,25,000/- but the same is not received by the informant. It is next
submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation
of the case hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory
bail.
The learned counsel for the informant submits that the informant is
ready to receive the new articles of the value of Rs. 18,25,000/- for which,
quotation was furnished by the petitioner.
Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
bail on satisfying the court concerned that the petitioner has handed over
the articles worth Rs 18,25,000/- to the informant for which, the petitioner
issued the quotation and furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned J.M., Ranchi in connection with Chutia P.S. case no.
183 of 2019 subject to the condition that the petitioner will co-operate
with the Investigation of the case and will appear before the Investigating
Officer as and when noticed by him and will submit mobile number and
photocopy of Aadhaar card at the time of surrender in the court below
with an undertaking not to change mobile number during the pendency
of the case along with the other conditions laid down under section 438
(2) Cr. P.C.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 4885 of 2020
Tara Bhandari @ Tara Zahrullah ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.S. Dayal , Adv.
For the State : Mr. Ashok Singh , Addl. PP
02 / 12.10.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner personally
undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Rajrappa P.S.
case no. 163 of 2018 registered under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 337,
338, 427, 353, 504, 295A of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 of
Prevention of damage to Public Property Act, 1984
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is
no specific allegation against only three persons, who were leading the
mob and the petitioner was not amongst them and the allegation against
the petitioner are all false and those allegations are general and omnibus
in nature. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner has been implicated in this case as he is the resident of
the locality. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate
with the investigation of the case and also ready and willing to deposit
Rs. 10,000/- with the Deputy Collector, Ramgarh hence, the petitioner be
given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
the petitioner.
Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
bail on showing the proof of deposit of Rs. 10,000/- with the Deputy
collector, Ramgarh and furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned SDJM, Ramgarh in connection with Rajrappa P.S.
case no. 163 of 2018 subject to the condition that the petitioner will co-
operate with the Investigation of the case and will appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will submit mobile
number and photocopy of Aadhaar card at the time of surrender in the
court below with an undertaking not to change mobile number during the
pendency of the case along with the other conditions laid down under
section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 4884 of 2020
Baijnath Mahto ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sidhant Sinha , Adv.
For the State : Mr. P.K. Chatterjee , Addl. PP
02 / 12.10.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Sidhant Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner
personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with complaint case
no. 1140 of 2020 registered under Sections 33/52 of the Indian Forest
Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of JCB
machine which was involved in clearing the bushes from the forest area.
It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the
supplementary affidavit. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready
and willing to furnish sufficient security including cash security and he
undertakes neither to use his JCB machine in forest land nor to enter into
any forest land himself during pendency of the case hence, the petitioner
be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
the petitioner.
Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
bail on furnishing cash security of Rs. 20,000/- and furnishing bail bond
of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M., 1st class, Hazaribag in
connection with complaint case no. 1140 of 2020 subject to the condition
that the petitioner neither will use his JCB machine in forest land nor will
himself enter into any forest land during pendency of the case along with
the other conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 4882 of 2020
Saurabh Mishra ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Faiz Ur Rahman , Adv.
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava , Addl. PP
02 / 12.10.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Faiz Ur Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner
personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Gonda P.S. case
no. 49 of 2019 registered under Sections 341, 323, 354C, 354D and 34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner outraged the
modesty of the informant and assaulted one Raja Keshri, who came to
rescue of the informant and threatened the father of the informant at the
point of pistol. It is then submitted that the allegations against the
petitioner are all false. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as mentioned in
paragraph 18 of the anticipatory bail application. It is next submitted
that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation of the
case and also ready and willing to pay Rs. 30,000/- by way of two
separate demand draft, out of which one demand draft of Rs. 10,000/-
drawn in favour of Raja Keshri and another demand draft of Rs. 20,000/-
drawn in favour of the informant as ad interim victim compensation
without prejudice to his defence and he undertakes not to annoy or
disturb the informant or her family members in any manner during
pendency of the case hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of
anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
the petitioner.
Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
bail on depositing Rs. 30,000/- by way of two separate demand draft, out
of which one demand draft of Rs. 10,000/- drawn in favour of Raja
Keshri and another demand draft of Rs. 20,000/- drawn in favour of the
informant as ad interim victim compensation and furnishing bail bond of
Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M., 1st class Ranchi in
connection with Gonda P.S. case no. 49 of 2019 subject to the condition
that the petitioner will co-operate with the Investigation of the case and
will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him
and will submit mobile number and photocopy of Aadhaar card at the
time of surrender in the court below with an undertaking not to change
mobile number during the pendency of the case along with the other
conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
In case of depositing aforesaid demand draft by the petitioner,
learned court below is directed to issue notice to the informant and
release the demand draft in her favour on proper identification
forthwith.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 4879 of 2020
Md. Israfil Anshari ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Ms. Alka Kumari, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh , Addl. PP
02 / 12.10.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to
remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks
after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Tandwa P.s.
Case no. 35 of 2020 registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 379, 511
of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the driver cum owner of the Hywa vehicle was involved in
illegal transportation of coal. It is then submitted that the allegations
against the petitioner are all false and those allegations are general and
omnibus in nature. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as mentioned in
paragraph 2 of the supplementary affidavit. It is next submitted that the
petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case and
also ready and willing to furnish sufficient security including cash
security, hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
the petitioner.
Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
bail on furnishing cash security of Rs. 20,000/- and furnishing bail bond
of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Chatra in connection
with Tandwa P.s. Case no. 35 of 2020 subject to the condition that the
petitioner will co-operate with the Investigation of the case and will
appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and
will submit mobile number and photocopy of Aadhaar card at the time of
surrender in the court below with an undertaking not to change mobile
number during the pendency of the case along with the other conditions
laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 4878 of 2020
Mahendra Prasad ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Kumar , Adv.
For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal , Addl. PP
02 / 12.10.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with R.I.T. P.S. case
no. 113 of 2020 registered under Sections 7 of the Essential Commodities
Act, 1955.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the
government dealer was involved in black-marketing of the food gains
meant for public distribution and 40 kg. of rice was recovered from his
possession. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner
are all false and the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence.
It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the
investigation of the case and also ready and willing to furnish sufficient
security including cash security, hence, the petitioner be given the
privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
the petitioner.
Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
bail on furnishing cash security of Rs. 2,000/- and furnishing bail bond
of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Seraikella in
connection with R.I.T. P.S. case no. 113 of 2020 subject to the condition
that the petitioner will co-operate with the Investigation of the case and
will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him
and will submit mobile number and photocopy of Aadhaar card at the
time of surrender in the court below with an undertaking not to change
mobile number during the pendency of the case along with the other
conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 4875 of 2020
Laxman Choudhary ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. L.C. Roy , Adv.
For the State : Mr. V.V. Pradhan , Addl. PP
02 / 12.10.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Mr. L.C. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner personally
undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Jasidih P.S. case
no. 227 of 2020 registered under Sections 188,413, 414, 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, Section 21 of MMDR Act, section 54 of JMMC Rules, 2004. .
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the
truck which was involved in overloading of sand. It is then submitted
that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is further
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no
criminal antecedent, as mentioned in paragraph 12 of the anticipatory
bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-
operate with the investigation of the case and also ready and willing to
furnish sufficient security including cash security, hence, the petitioner
be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
the petitioner.
Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
bail on furnishing cash security of Rs. 10,000/- and furnishing bail bond
of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Deoghar in
connection with Jasidih P.S. case no. 227 of 2020 subject to the condition
that the petitioner will co-operate with the Investigation of the case and
will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him
and will submit mobile number and photocopy of Aadhaar card at the
time of surrender in the court below with an undertaking not to change
mobile number during the pendency of the case along with the other
conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 4874 of 2020
Ram Gopal Dalmia ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur , Adv.
For the State : Mr. Vijay Kr. Sinha , Addl. PP
For the informant : M/s. Ranesh Anand, Kumari Rashmi, Advs.
02 / 12.10.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner
personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court
for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Bermo P.S.
case no. 122 of 2020 registered under Sections 469/500/504/505(2) of
the Indian Penal Code, section 67 of the I.T. (amendment) Act, 2008.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner made postings on
the social media defaming the informant. It is then submitted that the
allegations against the petitioner are all false and those allegations are
general and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that the petitioner is
ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case and also ready and
willing to pay Rs. 20,000/- as ad interim victim compensation to the
informant without prejudice to his defence and he undertakes not to
make any posting on any social media during pendency of the case
hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
the petitioner.
Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
eight weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released
on bail on depositing Rs 20,000/- by way of demand draft drawn in
favour of informant as ad interim victim compensation and furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned SDJM,
Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Bermo P.S. case no. 122 of 2020
subject to the condition that the petitioner will not make any posting on
any social media during pendency of the case and will co-operate with the
Investigation of the case and will appear before the Investigating Officer
as and when noticed by him and will submit mobile number and
photocopy of Aadhaar card at the time of surrender in the court below
with an undertaking not to change mobile number during the pendency
of the case along with the other conditions laid down under section 438
(2) Cr. P.C.
In case of depositing aforesaid demand draft by the petitioner,
learned court below is directed to issue notice to the informant and
release the demand draft in her favour on proper identification
forthwith.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 4872 of 2020
Baleshwar Yadav ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Ms. Nitu Sinha, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar , Addl. PP
02 / 12.10.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Ms. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner personally
undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Barkatha P.S.
case no. 51 of 2020 registered under Sections 406, 420, 120B of the Indian
Penal Code, section 25 of MANREGA Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the owner of TATA HITACHI 210 LCHV poclain machine
which was employed illegally for doing the work of MANREGA project.
It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false
and the petitioner had no knowledge about his poclain machine being
engaged in MANREGA work. It is further submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as
mentioned in paragraph 10 of the anticipatory bail application. It is next
submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation
of the case and also ready and willing to furnish sufficient security
including cash security, hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of
anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
the petitioner.
Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
eight weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released
on bail on furnishing cash security of Rs. 20,000/- and furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M., 1st class,
Hazaribag in connection with Barkatha P.S. case no. 51 of 2020 subject to
the condition that the petitioner will co-operate with the Investigation of
the case and will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when
noticed by him and will submit mobile number and photocopy of
Aadhaar card at the time of surrender in the court below with an
undertaking not to change mobile number during the pendency of the
case along with the other conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr.
P.C.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 4871 of 2020
Md. Nurul Islam ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam, Kumar , Adv.
For the State : Mr. Md. Hatim , Addl. PP
02 / 12.10.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Radhanagar
P.S. case no. 91 of 2020 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307,
379, 332, 353, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was a member of an
unlawful assembly being armed with deadly weapon, he in prosecution
of the common object of the assembly used criminal force against the
police personnel who had gone to arrest one criminal namely
Azeemuddin Sk. and attempted to murder Niranjan Kacchap, Pranit
Patel, Gaurav Kumar, Jagannath Pan, Yogendra Prasad Singh, Ranjit
Kumar Mahto, Bablu Kumar Yadav, Sajjad Ansari and Innocent Murmu.
It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false
and the petitioner is the Vice President of Zila Parishad of Sahibganj and
was also President of a political party. It is further submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent,
as mentioned in paragraph 13 of the anticipatory bail application. It is
next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the
investigation of the case and undertakes to pay Rs. 90,000/- by way of 9
separate demand drafts of Rs. 10,000/- each drawn in favour of each of
the nine victims namely Niranjan Kacchap, Pranit Patel, Gaurav Kumar,
Jagannath Pan, Yogendra Prasad Singh, Ranjit Kumar Mahto, Bablu
Kumar Yadav, Sajjad Ansari and Innocent Murmu as ad interim victim
compensation to the informant without prejudice to his defence hence,
the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
the petitioner.
Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
bail on depositing Rs. 90,000/- by way of nine demand drafts of Rs.
10,000/- each drawn in favour of each of the nine victims namely
Niranjan Kacchap, Pranit Patel, Gaurav Kumar, Jagannath Pan, Yogendra
Prasad Singh, Ranjit Kumar Mahto, Bablu Kumar Yadav, Sajjad Ansari
and Innocent Murmu as ad interim victim compensation and furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M., 1st class,
Rajmahal in connection with Radhanagar P.S. case no. 91 of 2020 subject
to the condition that the petitioner will co-operate with the Investigation
of the case and will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when
noticed by him and will submit mobile number and photocopy of
Aadhaar card at the time of surrender in the court below with an
undertaking not to change mobile number during the pendency of the
case along with the other conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr.
P.C.
In case of depositing aforesaid demand draft by the petitioner,
learned court below is directed to issue notice to the victims and release
the demand draft in their favour on proper identification forthwith.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 4865 of 2020
Kedar Ram ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ... Opposite Parties
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai , Adv.
For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, Addl. PP
02 / 12.10.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner
personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Chandrapura
P.S. case no. 103 of 2019 registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506,
498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 D.P.Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the father-in-law of the informant and the allegation against
the petitioner are all false and those allegations are general and omnibus
in nature and the main allegation is against the husband of the
informant. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate
with the investigation of the case hence, the petitioner be given the
privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
the petitioner.
Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of learned SDJM, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Chandrapura P.S.
case no. 103 of 2019 subject to the condition that the petitioner will co-
operate with the Investigation of the case and will appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will submit mobile
number and photocopy of Aadhaar card at the time of surrender in the
court below with an undertaking not to change mobile number during the
pendency of the case along with the other conditions laid down under
section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 4862 of 2020
Esha Kumari ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ... Opposite Parties
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Choudhary , Adv.
For the State : Mr. Mohua Palit , Addl. PP
02 / 12.10.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Mr. A.K. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner
personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
are ignored for the present.
Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with C.P. No. 1348 of
2018 registered under Sections 379/385/120B/34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the wife of the complainant and the allegation against the
petitioner is that the petitioner has taken away jewelry worth Rs.
2,00,000/- and costly cloth worth Rs. 50,000/- from the house of the
complainant. It is then submitted that the allegations against the
petitioner are all false and because of the matrimonial dispute, this false
case has been foisted against the petitioner hence, the petitioner be given
the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
the petitioner.
Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of learned J.M., 1st class, Bokaro in connection with C.P. No. 1348 of 2018
subject to the condition that the petitioner will along with the other
conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 4861 of 2020
Md. Jawed Alam ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ... Opposite Parties
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar , Adv.
For the State : Mr. V. Pradhan , Addl. PP
02 / 12.10.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with C.P. Case no.
676 of 2017 registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 82 of the Indian Registration Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in criminal
conspiracy with the co-accused persons sold the land of the complainant.
It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false
and the petitioner has never executed any sale deed. It is further
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is one
of the partner of the M/s Fast Speed Retailers Pvt. Ltd and the
complainant has taken Rs. 8,00,000/- from M/s Fast Speed Retailers Pvt.
Ltd in respect of the sale agreement. It is further submitted that the
petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as mentioned in paragraph 29 of
the anticipatory bail application. It is next submitted that the dispute
between the parties is at best a civil dispute hence, the petitioner be given
the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
the petitioner.
Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of learned J.M., 1st class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case no. 676 of
2017 subject to the other conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr.
P.C.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 4859 of 2020
1.Sanjay Kumar Yadav @ Sanjay Kr. Yadav @ Sanjay Yadav
2. Bachhu Yadav ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar , Sr. Adv.
For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey , Addl. PP 02 / 12.10.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioners, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter are ignored for the present.
Apprehending their arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Taljhari P.S. case no. 49 of 2020 registered under Sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were forcibly lifting the stones from the mines of the informant. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. Drawing attention of the court to page 26 of the brief, which is the deed of partnership between the petitioner no. 1 and the informant, it is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that mines is the joint property of partners and the dispute between the party is basically a civil dispute. The petitioner has also lodged complaint with the District Mining Officer and in this respect, draws attention of the court to page 55-56 of the brief. It is next submitted that the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M., Rajmahal in connection with Taljhari P.S. case no. 49 of 2020 subject to the condition that the petitioners will co-operate with the Investigation of the case and will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will submit mobile number and photocopy of Aadhaar card at the time of surrender in the court below with an undertaking not to change mobile number during the pendency of the case along with the other conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 4891 of 2020
Tabrej Alam ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ... Opposite Parties
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Q. Imam Ansari, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy , Addl. PP
For Informant : Mr. S. Baroi, Advocate
02 / 12.10.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Q. Imam Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint case no. 3347 of 2018 registered under Sections 323/419/406/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has taken Rs 1,23,000/- from the complainant to sell a land and consequent upon that complainant also invested Rs. 65,000/- for carrying out Construction work over the said land but the petitioner has entered into an agreement with third party and not returned money to the complainant thereby committing criminal breach of trust. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation of dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner at the time of alleged entrustment of money to him and the informant failed to pay the rest amount of money out of the total consideration amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- within the stipulated period of 15 months and the claim of complainant of investing Rs. 65,000/- over the land for carrying the construction work is false and the dispute is basically a civil dispute. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to repay Rs. 1,23,000/- as ad interim victim compensation to the complainant without prejudice to his defence and hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on bail on depositing 1,23,000/- by way of demand draft drawn in favour of complainant as ad interim victim compensation and furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M, 1st class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint case no. 3347 of 2018 subject to the other conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. In case of depositing aforesaid demand draft by the petitioner, learned court below is directed to issue notice to the complainant and release the demand draft in his favour on proper identification forthwith.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B. A. No. 4892 of 2020
1. Nashima Kahtoon
2. Shabnam Khatoon ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ... Opposite Parties Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. P.C. Sinha , Adv.
For the State : Mr. V. Roy , Addl. PP 02 / 12.10.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioners, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter are ignored for the present.
Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with complaint case no . 1839 of 2017 registered under Sections 498A, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, section 3/4 D.P. Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 is the widow mother-is-law and petitioner no. 2 is the sister-in-law of the complainant and allegation against the petitioners are all false and those allegations are general and omnibus in nature and the main allegation is against the husband of the complainant. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that they undertake not to annoy or disturb the complainant in any manner during pendency of the case hence, the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M., 1st class, Giridih in connection with complaint case no . 1839 of 2017 subject to the condition the petitioners will not annoy or disturb the complainant in any manner during pendency of the case along with other conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-