Niranjan Mahato @ Niranjan Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 December, 2019

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Niranjan Mahato @ Niranjan Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 December, 2019

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               A.B.A. No. 8507 of 2019
                      ------

1. Niranjan Mahato @ Niranjan Mahto

2. Mukteshwar Mahato @ Mukteshwar Mahto

3. Tulsi Mahato @ Tulsi Mahto

4. Rameshwar Mahato @ Rameshwar Mahto

5. Hari Mahato @ Hari Mahto

6. Lilaram Mahato @ Lilaram Mahto

7. Bhagirath Mahato @ Bhagirath Mahto

8. Manbhulan Mahato @ Manbhul Mahto ... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Brijnandan Mahato ... Opposite Parties

------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

    For the Petitioners      : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate
    For the State            : Ms. Laxmi Murmu, Addl. P.P.
                                          ------
    Order No.04 Dated- 13.12.2019

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Petition No.3289 of 2018 registered under sections 468/471/323/501/504/420/467 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of Arms Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners had an evil eye on the landed property of the complainant and they have filed Title Suit No.113 of 1998 against the complainant and his family members for declaration of their right, title and interest but after dismissal of the said title suit, the petitioners have fraudulently and illegally sold the land to one Kedarnath Gupta. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are all false. It is then submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence. The petitioners are the original raiyats but the complainant on the basis of forged and fabricated papers taking advantage of the position of advocate's clerk, by suppressing the material facts is claiming the same. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute. It is then submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to undertake that they will not go over or near the place of occurrence land during the pendency of the case. It is lastly submitted that the co-accused, with similar allegations, have already been given the privileges of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.8501 of 2019. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners 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 petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order, they 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, Dhanbad, in connection with Complaint Petition No.3289 of 2018 with the condition that the petitioners will not go over or near the place of occurrence land during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court