Jharkhand High Court
Chhatar Hajra Alias Chatru Hazra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2014
Author: P.P. Bhatt
Bench: P.P. Bhatt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
B.A. No. 2849 of 2014
...
Chhatar Hajra @ Chatru Hazra ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Purnendu Kr. Jha, Advocate.
For the State : - A.P.P.
...
02/09.04.2014The present bail application is filed under Sections 439 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail in connection with Porayahat P.S. Case No. 190 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 1355 of 2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Sri S. D. Dwivedi learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Godda.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP appearing on behalf of the State Perused the F.I.R. and other papers annexed to the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime merely on suspicion. It is further submitted that except the confessional statement of the co- accused, there is nothing against the present petitioner. It is further submitted that the co-accused, namely, Bijay @ Muso Pujhar and Suresh Pujhar have been granted bail by this Court as per order passed in B.A. No. 7167 of 2013 and B.A. No. 561 of 2014 vide order dated 01.10.2013 and 01.03.2014 respectively. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Annexure-2 and 2/1 in support of his submission. It is further submitted that another co-accused, namely, Reetlal Singh @ Bajrangi has also been granted bail vide order dated 26th March, 2014 passed in B.A. No. 1523 of 2014. The copy of the said order is also placed before this Court in course of argument, which is kept on record. It is further submitted that the name of the present petitioner has been disclosed in the confessional statement of the same Reetlal Singh @ Bajrangi, who has already been granted bail.
The learned A.P.P. appearing for the State while opposing the bail application, submitted that looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence and considering the fact that the petitioner is having criminal antecedents, he may not be enlarged on bail.
Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and more particularly, in view of the fact that prima facie, the name of the present petitioner came in the light on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused, namely, Reetlal Singh @ Bajrangi, who has already been granted bail by this Court as per order dated 26th March, 2014 passed in B.A. No. 1523 of 2014 as also considering the fact that other two co-accused, namely, Bijay @ Muso Pujhar and Suresh Pujhar have been granted bail by this Court as per order annexed to this petition vide Annexure-2 and 2/1, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is required to be enlarged on bail.
Having regard to facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner, Chhatar Hajra @ Chatru Hazra is directed to be enlarged on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri S. D. Dwivedi, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Godda in connection with Porayahat P.S. Case No. 190 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 1355 of 2011 subject to the following conditions;
1. that applicant shall abide by the conditions of the bond executed under chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
2. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required,
3. that applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused,
4. that applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence,
5. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
(P.P. Bhatt, J.) APK