Prakash Mahto @ Prakash Kumar Mahto v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 147, 148, 149, 188, 307, 323, 332, 333, 337, 338, 353, 379, 427, 504, 508
- Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984 s. 8
- Disaster Management Act, 2005 s. 51
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 41A, 438(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, the petitioners, above named, in the 2 A.B.A. No. 4089 of 2024 event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within three weeks from today, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with…
Judgment
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioners : Mr. Anjani Nandan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mahto, A.P.P. Order No. 06 Dated: 19.08.2024 The petitioners apprehending their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 147/ 148/ 149/ 188/ 323/ 307/ 332/ 333/ 337/338/353/379/427/504/508 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 8 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. As per the allegation, 300-400 men including the petitioners and about 50-60 women tried to kill one Ajit Kumar Pandey- the driver of Scorpio Vehicle bearing registration no. JH-09AA- 3450 which had hit two children riding a cycle on 29.03.2021. They also blocked the main road and obstructed the police officials in discharging their official duties. They also damaged several vehicles. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not concerned with the alleged offence and have falsely been implicated in this case merely on suspicion. It has also not been specified in the written report as to how the petitioners were identified as the persons who were involved in the alleged offence. The petitioners are the residents of village-Bagda and have no criminal antecedent as has been stated in paragraph- 22 of the present anticipatory bail application. They have also responded the notices issued to them under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. They also undertake to cooperate in the ongoing investigation. Hence, they may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned A.P.P. opposes the petitioners’ prayer for anticipatory bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the petitioners, above named, in the 2 A.B.A. No. 4089 of 2024 event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within three weeks from today, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Kasmar P.S. Case No. 32 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 405 of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Ritesh/ (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 3 A.B.A. No. 4089 of 2024
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.