Jharkhand High Court
Kasuram Tudu vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... Opp. Party on 28 August, 2018
Author: Anant Bijay Singh
Bench: Anant Bijay Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 6469 of 2017
Kasuram Tudu ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opp. Party
WITH
A.B.A. No. 1251 of 2018
Saro Murmu..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand.... Opp. Party
WITH
A.B.A. No. 5991 of 2017
1. Arvind Kumar
2. Lakhan Purty ..... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
Opp. Party
WITH
A.B.A. No. 6036 of 2017
Rudra Prasanna Achariya Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand &Anr..... Opp. Party(s)
WITH
A.B.A. No. 6037 of 2017
1. Swaroop Acharya
2. Chiranjeev Brahma Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand Opp. Party
WITH
A.B.A. No. 6153 of 2017
1. Kunwar Mardi
2. Arjun Tudu Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand Opp. Party
WITH
A.B.A. No. 6490 of 2017
Ramchandra Mardi Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opp. Party
WITH
A.B.A. No. 6491 of 2017
Ishwar Tudu ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opp. Party
---------
-2- CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
---------
For the Petitioners M/s Manish Kumar, Abhishek Kumar, Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the State A.P.Ps.
---------
CAVOn 20.8.2018 Delivered on 28 -8-2018
All the cases are being heard together as all the cases arising out of same P.S. Case being Sundarnagar P.S. Case No.22/17, corresponding to G.R. No.1867/17 registered under Section 467/468/471/406/ 409/419/420/ 34 of the IPC.
In terms of the order dated 13.6.2018 counsel for the petitioners were directed to supply the phone numbers of the petitioners(except Saro Murmu petitioner in ABA No. 1251 of 2018) to the learned A.P.P latest by 28.6.2018 and the learned APP would supply the same to the concerned I.O. Thereupon, the I.O would give 72 hours notice to all the petitioners fixing date, time and place and record the statement of all the petitioners and submit up-to-date case diary before this court latest by 20.8.2018. Further the learned counsel for the petitioners was directed to add the informant as O.P. No.2 in ABA No. 6036 of 2017 and to take steps for issuance of notice upon the O.P;. No.2 for which requisite etc must be filed within a week under both process. Further the learned counsel for the petitioners was directed to file affidavit regarding the death of the petitioner no.1 namely Swaroop Acharya in A.B.ANo.6037of 2017. ABA No. 6469/17( Kasuram Tudu) The present case has been instituted on the basis of written complaint given by one Pappu Murmu registered under Section 467/468/471/406/ 409/419/420/34 of the IPC in connection with Sundarnagar P.S Case No. 22/17 corresponding to G.R No. 1867 of 2017 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. The petitioner is cousin of Mongla Murmu and informant is his maternal uncle. It is further submitted that the petitioner was informed by Mongla Murmu about the compensation received by him under Land Acquisition Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner had no intention of misappropriating the money as alleged and he was not involved in getting account number opened in the name of Mongla Murmu nor in the proceeding of award of compensation which is also apparent from the F.I.R . Lastly the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has taken -3- friendly loan of Rs. two lac from Mongla Murmu and he is ready to return the same to him.
Case diary has been received, which reveals that the statement of the petitioner before the I.O has not been recorded.
Learned A.P.P opposed the bail.
In view of the nature of the allegation made against the petitioner in the F.I.R, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner above named in connection with Sundarnagar P.S Case No. 22/17 corresponding to G.R No. 1867 of 2017 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur. Accordingly his prayer for bail is rejected. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may surrender before the court below and pray for regular bail which shall be considered by the court below without being prejudiced by this rejection order.
ABA No. 1251/18( Saro Murmu) The present case has been instituted on the basis of written report given by one Pappu Murmu registered under Section 467/468/471/406/ 409/419/420/34 of the IPC in connection with Sundarnagar P.S Case No. 22/17 corresponding to G.R No. 1867 of 2017 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur..
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an old lady aged about 62 hours and she is totally innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R and there is no any direct or specific allegation against this petitioner, neither there is any eye witness as to show the guilt of this petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been made accused in this case merely on the basis of suspicion. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no alleged article recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is further stated that no case under sections 467/468/ 471/406/409/419/420/34 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner and there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rs. Two lac has been transferred in the account of the petitioner and she is ready to deposit the said amount to Mongla Murmu.
Case diary has been received, which reveals that the statement of the petitioner before the I.O has not been recorded.
-4-Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for bail.
In the fact and circumstances of the case, the above named petitioner(Saro Murmu) is directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of her arrest or surrender the Court below shall enlarge her on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur. in connection with Sundarnagar P.S Case No. 22/17 corresponding to G.R No. 1867 of 2017 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C, ABA No. 5991/17 (1. Arvind Kumar and 2. Lakhan Purty) The present case has been instituted on the basis of written report given by one Pappu Murmu registered under Section 467/468/471/406/ 409/419 /420/ 34 of the IPC in connection with Sundarnagar P.S Case No. 22/17 corresponding to G.R No. 1867 of 2017 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur..
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have no concern with respect to the transactions which are being said to be alleged between the land brokers and officials. It is further submitted that the name of the petitioners are appearing in the name of the accused persons, however, there is no allegation in the contents of the written report given by the informant. It is further stated that Mangal Murmu is well known to the petitioner no.2 Lakhan Purti and in the year 2016 said Mongala Murmu was in urgent need of money for his personal affairs and for official work and approach to Kakhan Purti and requested friendly loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- as said Lakhan Purti had no sufficient money,then he approached to his friend petitioner no.1 Arbind Kumar who agreed to give Rs, 1,00,000/- as a loan to Mongla Murmu and accordingly on the assurance of Mongla Murmu and on good faith petitioners gave Rs. 1,00,000/- each to Mongla Murmu by cash on different dates It is stated that that there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioners and they are employees of Jamuna Auto Industries, Karnidih P.S Chandil. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had withdrawn Rs. One Lac each and they are ready to deposit the alleged amount.
Learned A.P.P opposed the bail and submitted that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R Case diary has been received, which reveals that the statement of the -5- petitioners before the I.O has not been recorded. With reference to Paragraphs 45,46 and 47 of the case diary it is stated that the statement of the prosecution witnesses have been recorded and they have supported the prosecution case.
In view of the nature of the allegations made against the petitioners in the case diary, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners in connection with Sundarnagar P.S Case No. 22/17 corresponding to G.R No. 1867 of 2017. Accordingly, their prayer for bail is rejected. However, the petitioners, if so advised, may surrender before the court below and pray for regular bail which shall be considered by the court below without being prejudiced by this rejection order ABA No. 6036/17 (Rudra Prasanna Achariya) The present case has been instituted on the basis of written report given by one Pappu Murmu registered under Section 467/468/471/ 406/409/419/420/34 of the IPC in connection with Sundarnagar P.S Case No. 22/17 corresponding to G.R No. 1867 of 2017 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur...
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is Peshkar of Land acquisition office and he is ready to deposit the alleged amount and he has no concern with the alleged transaction, so there is no chance of the petitioner to involve in this case and there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner.
The learned A.P.P opposed the bail.
Case diary has been received, which reveals that the statement of the petitioner before the I.O has not been recorded. From perusal of the case diary it appears that this case is still pending for investigation.
In view of the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in connection with Sundarnagar P.S Case No. 22/17 corresponding to G.R No. 1867 of 2017 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur. Accordingly his prayer for bail is rejected. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may surrender before the court below and pray for regular bail which shall be considered by the court below without being prejudiced by this rejection order ABA No. 6037/17 (Chiranjeev Brahma) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the -6- Petitioner no.1 namely Swaroop Acharya has died and therefore he does not want to press the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner no.1.Only he wants to press the anticipatory bail application of petitioner no.2 Chiranjeev Brahma.
Accordingly, anticipatory bail application on behalf of the petitioner no.1 namely Swaroop Acharya is dismissed as not pressed.
The present case has been instituted on the basis of written report given by one Pappu Murmu registered under Section 467/ 468/ 471/406/ 409/419/420/34 of the IPC in connection with Sundarnagar P.S Case No. 22/17 corresponding to G.R No. 1867 of 2017 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no concern with respect to the transactions which are being said to be alleged between the land brokers and officials. It is further submitted that the name of the petitioner is appearing in the name of the accused person, however, there is no allegation in the contents of the written report given by the informant. It is further stated that Mangal Murmu is well known to the petitioner and in the year 2016 said Mongala Murmu was in urgent need of money for his personal affairs and for official work and approach petitionerand requested friendly load of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Mongla Murmu said that he will get money from Swarnreka Pariyojna and after getting money he will repay th4e said loan amount and accordingly on the assurance of Mongla Murmu and on good faith the petitioners gave Rs, 1,00,000/- to Mongla Murmu by cash on different dates. It is stated that that there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners had withdrawn Rs. One Lac each and petitioner no.2 is ready to deposit the alleged amount.
Learned A.P.P opposed the bail.
Case diary has been received, which reveals that the statement of the petitioner before the I.O has not been recorded.
From perusal of the case diary it appears that this case is still pending for investigation.
In view of the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner no.2, I am not inclined to grant bail to him in connection with Sundarnagar P.S Case No. 22/17 corresponding to G.R No. 1867 of 2017 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur. Accordingly his prayer for bail is rejected. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may surrender
- 7- before the court below and pray for regular bail which shall be considered by the court below without being prejudiced by this rejection order ABA No.6153/17 (. Kunwar Mardi & Arjun Tudu) The present case has been instituted on the basis of written report given by one Pappu Murmu registered under Section 467/468/471/406/ 409/419/420/34 of the IPC in connection with Sundarnagar P.S Case No. 22/17 corresponding to G.R No. 1867 of 2017 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur..
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had withdrawn Rs. Three lac each, out of which petitioner no.1 has deposited Rs.2,70,000/- and he is ready to deposit the remaining amount i.e. Rs.30,000/- as well as petitioner no.2 is also ready to deposit the alleged amount i.e.Rs. Three lac.
The learned A.P.P opposed the bail Case diary has been received, which reveals that the statement of the petitioner before the I.O has not been recorded.
From perusal of the case diary it appears that this case is still pending for investigation.
In view of the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner and considering the fact that the case is pending for investigation, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners in connection with Sundarnagar P.S Case No. 22/17 corresponding to G.R No. 1867 of 2017 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur. Accordingly their prayer for bail is rejected. However, the petitioners, if so advised, may surrender before the court below and pray for regular bail which shall be considered by the court below without being prejudiced by this rejection order ABA No.6490/17 (Ramchandra Mardi) The present case has been instituted on the basis of written report given by one Pappu Murmu registered under Section 467/ 468/ 471/406 / 409/ 419/ 420/34 of the IPC in connection with Sundarnagar P.S Case No. 22/17 corresponding to G.R No. 1867 of 2017 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur..
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had withdrawn Rs. Three lac and he is ready to deposit the alleged amount i.e.Rs. Three lac.
Learned A.P.P opposed the bail -8- Case diary has been received, which reveals that the statement of the petitioner before the I.O has not been recorded.
From perusal of the case diary it appears that there is some allegation against the petitioner regarding misappropriate money .
In view of the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in connection with Sundarnagar P.S Case No. 22/17 corresponding to G.R No. 1867 of 2017 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur. Accordingly his prayer for bail is rejected. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may surrender before the court below and pray for regular bail which shall be considered by the court below without being prejudiced by this rejection order ABA No.6491/17(Ishwar Tudu ) The present case has been instituted on the basis of written report given by one Pappu Murmu registered under Section 467/ 468/471 /406/409/419/420/34 of the IPC in connection with Sundarnagar P.S Case No. 22/17 corresponding to G.R No. 1867 of 2017 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur..
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had withdrawn Rs. four lac and he is also ready to deposit the alleged amount i.e.Rs. four lacs.
Learned A.P.P opposed the bail Case diary has been received, which reveals that the statement of the petitioner before the I.O has not been recorded.
From perusal of the case diary it appears that there is some allegation against the petitioner regarding misappropriate of money.
In view of the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in connection with Sundarnagar P.S Case No. 22/17 corresponding to G.R No. 1867 of 2017 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur. Accordingly his prayer for bail is rejected. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may surrender before the court below and pray for regular bail which shall be considered by the court below without being prejudiced by this rejection order.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.) SD/