The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7143 of 2013 Dhullu Mahto State of Jharkhand ------- Versus ... ... ... Petitioner ... Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Kalyan Roy, Mahesh Tewari, Advocates : M/s. Rajesh Kumar, Ravi Prakash, Advocates For the State ------- 5/ 14.08.2013 The present bail application was initially listed before another Hon'ble Bench of this Court and by order dated 05.08.2013, the Hon'ble Single Judge ordered the matter to be listed before another Bench. By the order of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, the matter was ordered to be placed before me. Today, the matter was mentioned before the Division Bench presided over by Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for early listing and thus, this matter was ordered to be listed at 3 pm today. 2. The present bail application has been filed by the accused Dhullu Mahto, a sitting MLA, seeking grant of bail in connection with Katras P.S. Case No. 120 of 2013 (G.R. No. 2023 of 2013) registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 353, 323, 332, 290, 427, 283, 224, 225 and 504 IPC. 3. The brief case of the prosecution as disclosed in the First Information Report dated 12.05.2013 is that, on 12.05.2013 an information was received in the police station regarding accused Rajesh Gupta, who is a F.I.R. named accused in Baghmara (Barora) 2 P.S. Case No.121 of 2013 dated 22.04.2013 registered under sections 384 and 386 IPC. On receiving such information, the police proceeded to apprehend the said accused namely, Rajesh Gupta and when the police force reached near the house, the said Rajesh Gupta tried to escape however, he was apprehended by the police and the police party proceeded to take the apprehended accused to the police station. However, in the meantime the present applicant along with several other persons and his supporters, surrounded the official vehicle and attacked the police party. The present applicant with the help of others forced open the door of the police vehicle and dragged out the policemen from the vehicle and started abusing them and initiated a scuffle. The present applicant tried to snatch the service pistol of the informant also and he torn the uniform of the police constable namely, Ram Bachan Ram. It is also alleged that the accused Dhullu Mahto asked the informant to show the warrant and when the warrant was shown to the present applicant, he retorted that he does not recognise any 'court-Katchahari' and thereafter, the present applicant along with others took away the accused namely, Rajesh Gupta out of the lawful custody of the police and escaped. On the same day at about 14.15 hours, an information was given in the police station and the F.I.R, as noticed above, was registered against the present applicant and others. 3 4. The bail application bearing B.P. No. 1526 of 2013 was moved before the learned trial court which was heard and disposed of by order dated 17.07.2013 rejecting the prayer for grant of bail of the present applicant. 5. Mr. Kalyan Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the present applicant has submitted that, all the offences alleged in the First Information Report except, the offence under sections 332 and 353 IPC, are bailable and for the offences which are non- bailable, the maximum sentence prescribed is 3 years and since the present applicant is in judicial custody since 09.07.2013, his application for grant of bail deserves to be allowed by this Court. He has submitted that the present applicant is a sitting MLA and he is a responsible citizen and this is reflected in the conduct of the present applicant in as much as he himself surrendered in the court on 09.07.2013 and due to political rivalry he has been roped in and at the instance of one Dy. S.P. namely, Sanjeev Kumar, who was posted there and who tried to humiliate and harass the present applicant on several occasions, the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. In this connection, several complaints have been filed against the said Dy. S.P. and the matter was even raised in the Assembly by the public representative and on one occasion by the then Deputy Chief Minister himself. He has further submitted that it appears that the learned trial court has rejected the bail application of the present applicant mainly on the 4 ground that in the case diary, it has been mentioned that there are as many as 28 criminal cases registered against the present applicant however, he submits that this allegation is not true and in fact in most of the cases the present applicant has either been acquitted or final report has been submitted by the police itself. He has further submitted that the applicant is suffering from serious ailments and therefore, a Medical Board was constituted which has made a recommendation for referring the present applicant to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi for Colonoscopy & Segmental Biopsy and therefore, the present applicant deserves grant of bail by this Court. 6. As against the above contentions, Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P. has contended that the allegation against the petitioner is serious. He has not only assisted in escaping the accused namely, Rajesh Gupta from the lawful custody of police but he has also tried to snatch the service pistol and torn the official uniform of one constable namely, Ram Bachan Ram. He has submitted that this applicant has criminal antecedents and he is involved in several cases of serious and heinous nature and therefore, his prayer for grant of bail is liable to be rejected by this Court. He has further submitted that he has ignored the warrant of arrest when shown to him and he has made derogatory comments about the Court also. He has also submitted that in this case, the specific allegation against the present applicant is of rescuing the accused 5 Rajesh Gupta against whom F.I.R. under sections 384 & 386 IPC has been registered and thus, it would constitute an offence under Section 225 clause fourthly of IPC, which is also non-bailable and for which maximum sentence prescribed is 7 years and therefore, in these facts, this bail application is liable to be rejected. 7. On a perusal of the documents on record and having appreciated the contentions raised on behalf of both the parties, I find that the learned trial court has taken note of the fact that as many as 28 cases have been registered against the present applicant and the document which has been filed by the applicant in the present proceeding which is at page 17, would also disclose that the applicant himself has given list of as many as 19 cases registered against him, out of which as many as 7 cases are still pending against the present applicant. The offence alleged against the applicant in the present F.I.R. amounts to waging war against the authority of the State. 8. A perusal of the document (Annexure-3) which is filed along with supplementary affidavit dated 27.07.2013 discloses the brief medical history of the present applicant. The medicines prescribed by the doctor are all general and routine medicines relating to abdominal pain. The diagnosis shows Chronic Colitis and the document dated 08.08.2013 which has been tendered in the Court indicates that a Colonoscopy & Segmental Biopsy of the present applicant has been advised by the doctor, from the All 6 India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi as these facilities are not available at Ranchi. The documents provided and filed in this proceeding do not indicate any serious ailment to the applicant. 9. Adverting to the contention raised on behalf of the counsel for the present applicant that the present applicant has been roped in due to political rivalry and at the instance of one Dy.S.P. Namely, Sanjeev Kumar, I find myself unable to accept this contention as the matter is under investigation and at this stage, this cannot be adjudicated or this cannot be made a ground for grant of bail to the present applicant. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the bail application. 10. At this stage, the learned counsel for the present applicant made a prayer to permit the applicant to get the investigation done as referred above from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. I am inclined to grant two days' time to the present applicant but, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that two days' time would not be sufficient for getting the investigation done. However, I am not inclined to grant time more than two days to the applicant as the tests prescribed by the doctors would not take even two hours. 11. In view of the fact that the present bail application lacks merit, it is rejected. R.K. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)