The State of Jharkhand v. with
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) Arbind Mahto … … Petitioner B.A .No. 251 of 2024 The State of Jharkhand Versus with … … Opposite Party B.A .No. 255 of 2024 Puran Kumar Mahto @ Janak Kumar … … Petitioner The State of Jharkhand Versus with … … Opposite Party B.A .No. 299 of 2024 Baleshwar Mahto … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party with B.A .No. 304 of 2024 Kameshwar Mahto … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party with B.A .No. 310 of 2024 Chhote Lal Mahto … … Petitioner Versus
Legal Reasoning
The State of Jharkhand ------ CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA … … Opposite Party ------- For the Petitioner(s) For the Informant For the State : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate [ In BA No. 251 of 2024 & BA No. 299 of 2024 : Mr. Nehru Mahto, Advocate [ In BA No. 255 of 2024] : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Saurabh Tantia, Advocate : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tantia, Advocate [ In BA No. 304 of 2024 & BA No. 310 of 2024 : Mr. Haider Ali, Advocate [ In all the cases] : Mrs. Lily Sahay, APP [ In BA No. 251 of 2024] : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri,APP [ In BA No. 255 of 2024] : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, APP [ In BA No. 299 of 2024] : Mr. Naveen Kumar Gaunjhu, APP [ In BA No. 304 of 2024] : Mrs. Mohua Palit, APP [ In BA No. 310 of 2024] -------- 05 /03.05.2024 All the bail applications arise from the same police station case
Decision
number, therefore, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. -2- Heard the learned counsels for the parties. The petitioners are accused in connection with Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 135 of 2023 registered under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh/ learned SDJM, Ramgarh. The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that as per the FIR which has been lodged by a personnel of police department, there is no specifically named persons who have committed the offence and as per the FIR also it is apparent that there is no eye witness to show that any of the petitioners have caused the death of the deceased. Learned counsels further submitted that there are 18 charge sheet witnesses and no other out of which seven of them have been examined and none of them has taken the name of any one except PW 1, namely Nargis Khatoon and she has named two other persons in the deposition as eyewitnesses. It is further submitted that as per the her own depositions she is not an eyewitness and thus she could not have named any one and as per the FIR lodged by the police, there is no eyewitness in the FIR. Learned counsels has also referred to information given by Hasina Khatoon to the officer-in-charge, Rajrappa police station Hasina Khatoon has taken the name of certain accused persons. Counsel has stated that she herself has stated that around abut 4.30 PM she received information by the villagers but she has not named the villagers who had given her the information. So this is not in consonance with the FIR lodged by the police in which apparently there is no named person having committed the deed. Learned counsels have stated that two persons have been alleged to have seen the occurrence as deposed by Nargis Khatoon, are not charge sheet witnesses and it is strange why they were not brought in the case earlier at the stage of investigation. It is further submitted that even the allegation made by Hasina Khatoon is against 30-40 villagers and, therefore even otherwise the case seems to be one of no specific assault by any person and even the persons are unknown as per the FIR lodged by the police. It is further submitted that petitioners, namely, Arbind Mahto, Puran Kumar Mahto alias Janak Kumar and Baleshwar Mahto are in custody from 24.08.2023 and petitioners namely, Kameshwar Mahto and Chhote Lal Mahto are in custody from 05.09.2023, therefore, for the purpose of bail , they have been sufficiently punished. -3- The learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail applications of the petitioners and has submitted that as per the information given to the officer-in-charge, Rajrappa police station on the same day there is difference in the information that has been given in the FIR and as per Annexure-2 of the counter affidavit which is the deposition of the wife she has definitely taken the name of seven persons who have assaulted the deceased. Counsel has also stated in page 13 of the counter affidavit that two of the claimed eye witnesses written to the Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh that they have been threatened to not depose in the case, therefore, based on such circumstances, the petitioners may not be allowed the privilege of bail. Learned counsels for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail petitions and endorsed the arguments of the learned counsel for the informant. Mrs. Lily Sahay, the learned APP has also argued that the trial court be directed to expedite the trial. Having heard both counsels, gone through the records of the case and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioners, namely, Arbind Mahto, Baleshwar Mahto, Kameshwar Mahto and Chhote Lal Mahto, on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh in connection with ST Case No. 146 of 2023 arising out of Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 135 of 2023 corresponding to GR No. 700 of 2023. Further, I am inclined to release the petitioner, namely, Puran Kumar Mahto @ Janak Kumar, on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-(rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Ramgarh in connection with Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 135 of 2023. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible. Sharda/ (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)