Jharkhand High Court
Suresh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... ... on 20 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.5883 of 2023
------
1. Suresh Kumar
2. Dipak Kumar Barnwal @ Dipu @ Deepak Kumar Burnwal .... .... .... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party
------
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, Addl.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Vikash Anand, Adv.
------
Order No.05 Dated- 20.03.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Nimiyaghat P.S. Case No. 29 of 2022 instituted under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 427, 452, 380, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.
3. As per FIR, allegation is that the land pertaining to Khata no.30, plot no.470 mouza Isri, area 2.5 decimals was purchased by the mother of the informant. It is further alleged that the house is also situated over the said land which is joint property of his two brothers, however, his brothers are residing outside and they are not in possession over the said property. It is further alleged that brothers of the informant namely Sarwan Vishwakarma and Shankar Vishwakarma have executed the sale deed in respect of the said land and house in question in favour of the wife of the petitioner No.1 with intention to grab the total property. It is further alleged that the informant left the said house and shifted in a rented house but in his absence, petitioners committed theft of articles of the informant like jewelries of his wife, trunk, iron almirah and other documents related to the property by breaking the door the said house in question and also assaulted the informant by fist and legs and cause injuries to him when the informant reached there.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and has committed no offence at all rather they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the property is purchased from the original owner. The informant has also lodged civil suit against his brothers including the wife of the present petitioner No.1 who are arrayed as defendants, which is pending for adjudication. There is no role of petitioners in assault or commission of theft of anything as alleged in the FIR. Petitioners have no criminal antecedents and they undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, the petitioners may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.
5. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that there is direct allegations against the petitioners for grabbing the share of land of the informant and committed theft of articles of the informant by entering into his house in his absence and they have also assaulted him upon the protest. Hence, petitioners may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioners coupled with materials available on record and also in view of the nature of dispute, I am inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the Court below within four weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrendering, they will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned JM,1st Class, Giridih in connection with Nimiyaghat P.S. Case No. 29 of 2022 with the condition that they will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish their mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that they will not change their mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Pappu/