Jharkhand High Court
Sukhmangal Bhagat vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 August, 2017
1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
B.A. No. 5305 of 2017
Sukhmangal Bhagat, son of Chama Bhagat, Resident of VillageJhiki, P.O.
and P.S.Lapung, Dist.Ranchi, Jharkhand
..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, APP
5/ 10.08.2017The criminal antecedent report vide affidavit dated 09.08.2017 is taken on record.
Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.
The petitioner has been made accused in Bero P.S. Case No.35/2012,corresponding to G.R.No.1805/2012 [S.T.Case No.426/2015] registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 436, 427, 448 and 387 IPC; Section 27 Arms Act and Section 17 CLA Act.
Contending that there is no prohibition under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail to an accused against whom there is another criminal case pending and the provisions under the Evidence Act also would disclose that merely on the basis of bad conduct of an accused an order of conviction cannot be recorded, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, in view of orders granting bail to other coaccused vide B.A.No.358/2016 and B.A. No.4918/2012, is entitled for grant of bail. It is contended that the name of the petitioner transpired in the disclosure statement of coaccused Sanjay Gope who has already been granted bail in B.A.No.358/2016. In these facts, it is submitted that after a chargesheet has been filed in this case, the 2. petitioner who is in judicial custody since 01.12.2016 deserves grant of bail.
Referring to the stand taken in the counteraffidavit, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, the learned APP has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.
Insofar as, contention raised on criminal antecedent with reference to section 438 Cr.P.C is concerned, suffice would be to indicate that this contention has been raised in ignorance of the legal position in the context of difference between the anticipatory bail and bail. An order granting anticipatory bail is issued in exceptional circumstances though, it may not necessarily be an exceptional case. At the beginning of case, when a person is granted benefit under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the law enjoins that such person should not have suffered an order of conviction in the criminal case. The legal position in respect of grant of bail is altogether different. It is stated that there are as many as 10 criminal cases registered against the petitioner. The prosecution case is that the accused persons had set vehicles on fire and kept the security guards in illegal confinement. They had threatened the labourers working at the Power Grid. It is stated that they belong to a banned organizationPeoples' Liberation Front of India and they have been demanding extortion money. As noticed above, now a chargesheet has already been filed in this case.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the criminal antecedent of the petitioner [refer, "Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and Another" reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446], I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, and accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
SI/ ,