1. Rakesh Mahato 2. Yogesh Mahato @ Yogesh Kr. Mahato 3. Parmeshwar Mahato @ v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sarita Devi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 9237 of 2023 ------ 1. Rakesh Mahato 2. Yogesh Mahato @ Yogesh Kr. Mahato 3. Parmeshwar Mahato @ Parmeshwar Kr. Mahto .... ... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sarita Devi … … Opposite Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioners For the State For O.P. No. 2
Legal Reasoning
-------- : Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, Advocate : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate -------- Order No. 04 / Dated: 20th June, 2024 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2. 2. This Anticipatory bail application has been preferred for grant of Anticipatory Bail in connection with Complaint-cum-protest Petition being C.P. Case No. 1182 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 302/ 201/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code in which all the aforesaid three petitioners are accused and they are apprehending their arrest. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on earlier occasion the complainant had filed a police case on the basis of a complaint Case No. 1388 of 2017 vide Hariharpur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2017 dated 20.06.2017 under Sections 302/ 201/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code where all the three petitioners were made accused. 4. It is further submitted that in the said Hariharpur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2017 the police after completion of investigation submitted the final report absolving all the petitioners from the charges levelled against them for the offence punishable under Sections 302/ 201/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Further it has been pointed out that the concerned Court below on the basis of the Complaint-cum-protest Petition vide C.P. Case No. 1182 of 2018 found prima-facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the three accused persons. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Court below has taken the cognizance only on the basis of last seen theory and there is no substantive evidence in order to corroborate the involvement of these petitioners in the commission of the offence under the backdrop of last seen theory. 7. It is undisputed fact that the deceased was a driver of Hywa of one of the co-accused persons namely Parmeshwar Mahato @ Parmeshwar Kr. Mahto and he had accompanied voluntarily and willingly with the accused persons including the said Parmeshwar Mahto @ Parmeshwar Kr. Mahto and two co-accused persons on the fateful day when the offence is said to have been committed. 8. Further, it has been pointed out that in the earlier occasion when the police investigated the case and submitted the final report found that the deceased was in a drunken state and the dead body was lying on the railway track and in this view of the matter it has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that it is a case of accident by the train in a drunken state of the deceased cannot be ruled out. 9. Further, it has also been pointed out that in para-19 of the bail petition it has been stated that there is no criminal history against anyone of the petitioners and therefore, these petitioners deserve to get anticipatory bail. 10. On the other hand learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2, have vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that the complainant is a poor lady who is the wife of the deceased and the manner and mode in which the entire case was instituted and investigated by the police is highly doubtful and the learned Court below on the basis of the materials available on record has rightly taken the cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 302/ 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on basis of ample materials available on record against the accused petitioners and therefore, these petitioners do not deserve to get anticipatory bail. 11. It has pointed out that on 10.03.2017 when the deceased-husband of the complainant was going with the accused persons then he had narrated his apprehension about some untoward incident because there was previous -2- A.B.A. No. 9237 of 2023 enmity between them as stated by the complainant in her original complaint petition No. 1388 of 2017 which was later on registered as Hariharpur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2017 dated 20.06.2017 registered under Section 302/ 201/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code in which Final report was submitted as there was lack of evidence to support the case of the prosecution against these petitioners. 12. It has further been pointed out that the complainant had tried a lot to institute the F.I.R. directly in the police station just after the death of her husband but when the police did not lodge the case then the complaint had instituted a case vide Complaint Case No. 1388 of 2017 which was later on registered as Hariharpur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2017 and further it is also submitted that it is a case of last seen in which the deceased had accompanied the petitioners and therefore, these petitioners do not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 13. Having heard the parties, perused the records of this case. 14. In view of the persuasive submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners it is found just and fair to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly the petitioners are directed to surrender within two weeks and in the event of their surrender / arrest, the petitioners, named above, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (twenty-five thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate,1st Class, Dhanbad, in connection with Complaint-cum-protest Petition being C.P. Case No. 1182 of 2018, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further subject to the condition that the petitioners will cooperate in the investigation of the case and trial and they will appear as and when required by the I.O./ concerned Court, failing which appropriate order shall be passed for the cancelation of bail by the concerned Court below as per the provisions of law. D.S. (Navneet Kumar, J.) -3- A.B.A. No. 9237 of 2023