Jharkhand High Court
Chandan Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 20 July, 2021
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 927 of 2020
------
1. Chandan Munda
2. Rajendra Munda
3. Chhote Munda ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ramawatar Choubey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lily Sahay, Addl. P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate
------
Order No.06 Dated- 20.07.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No.339 of 2019 registered under sections 419/ 420/467/468/471/387/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners are the man of Ramesh Oraon who has been engaged for grabbing the land of innocent persons and threatens the people of dire consequences and used to produce fake genealogical table for grabbing the land. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and the petitioners have no concern with Ramesh Oraon and Santosh Kumar Singh. It is next submitted that series of litigation is going on between the parties. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioners have in different proceedings produced different fraudulent documents by blaming shall be the descendants of different persons on the basis of different genealogical table fraudulently filed by them and they were indulging in forging and cheating in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons; therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case to find out the different fraudulent acts committed by them. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners of committing forgery and cheating as well as the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the above named petitioners is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-