Jharkhand High Court
Mihir Gope And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 March, 2017
Author: Anant Bijay Singh
Bench: Anant Bijay Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No.557 of 2016
1.Mihir Gope
2. Shiv Charan Gope @ Shib Charan Gope
3. Gouranga Gope
4. Dinesh Kumar Mandi
5. Nikhil Mahato
6. Ganesh Gope
7. Prafulla Gope @ Prafulla Kumar Gope
8. Thakur Das Mandi
9. Dibakar Mahato
10. Ajay Mahato @ Ajay Kumar Mahato
11. Raju Mahato @ Raju Kumar Mahato ...... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party with A.B. A. No.4910 of 2016
1.Parmeshwar Mandi
3. Ramdev Mandi
4. Goutam Mahato ...... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I ...... Opposite Party with A.B. A. No.2919 of 2016 Ajoy Kundu @ Ajay Kumar Kundu ...... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I ...... Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate Mr. P.A.S Pati, Advocate For the State : A.P.P 09/Dated: 23/03/2017 The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Chakulia P.S. Case No. 44 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 406 of 2015.
It appears that learned A.P.P has filed counteraffidavit in (A.B.A. NO. 4910 of 2016).
From perusal of para 17 of the counteraffidavit, it appears that in para 52 of the case diary it has been mentioned that coaccused Dipankar Das, Director of the Magnes Infra Projects Ltd. Company has been arrested on 23.05.2015 in Bhadrak Town P.S. Case No. 170 of 2015 dated 22.05.2015 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code who was produced before the learned SD.J.M, Bhadrak Orissa. Further, from perusal of para 18 of the counteraffidavit, it appears that in para 61 of the case diary it has been mentioned that on 26.09.2016 production warrant was issued by the learned court of Ghatshila for production of the aforesaid accused.
In view of the matter, office is directed to call for report from the court concerned as to whether the aforesaid accused has been produced before him or not on the basis of production warrant, so that further order be passed.
It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the informant is not a depositor nor the petitioners are agents of any company as has been alleged in the F.I.R rather the petitioners are also victims themselves and have deposited money in the company but the company has become sick.
Learned A.P.P is directed to obtain uptodate case diary. List this case after eight weeks.
Till then interim relief granted earlier shall continue.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satyarthi/-