The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A No. 10826 of 2023 Om Prakash Pramanik The State of Jharkhand --- Versus --- --- Petitioner --- Opp. Party With A.B.A No. 10830 of 2023 Sanjay Thakur @ Sanjay Bhim Thakur --- --- Petitioner The State of Jharkhand Versus --- --- Opp. Party With A.B.A No. 10839 of 2023 Arun Pramanik @ Arun Parmanik --- Petitioner The State of Jharkhand --- Opp. Party Rohan Pramanik --- Petitioner The State of Jharkhand --- Opp. Party Vishnu Pramanik --- Petitioner The State of Jharkhand --- Opp. Party Radhu Pramanik --- Petitioner The State of Jharkhand --- Opp. Party --- Versus --- With A.B.A No. 10856 of 2023 --- Versus --- With A.B.A No. 10862 of 2023 --- Versus --- With A.B.A No. 10891 of 2023 --- Versus --- With A.B.A No. 10945 of 2023 --- Versus --- With A.B.A No. 10948 of 2023 Nagendra Pramanik --- Petitioner The State of Jharkhand --- Opp. Party Shibu Pramanik The State of Jharkhand --- Versus --- --- Petitioner --- Opp. Party 2. With A.B.A No. 10964 of 2023 Anil Pramanik @ Arnal Pramanik --- Versus --- Petitioner The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opp. Party ---
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath --- For the Petitioners: Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, Advocate For the O.P-State: M/s Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Priya Shrestha, Vishwanath Roy, Special P.P. Fahad Allam. A.P.P. For the Informant: Mr. Robin Kumar, Advocate --- 06 / 13.06.2024 All these anticipatory bail applications arise out of the same police case.
Decision
Accordingly, they are being disposed of by a common order. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Chas Mufassil P.S. Case No. 205 of 2023 for the offences registered under sections 341, 324, 385, 427, 307, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. 3. It is alleged that on 01.11.2023 at about 7.00 a.m., petitioner Arun Pramanik and one Pappu Pramanik came to the house of the Informant and asked him to vacate the land and also demanded Rs. 30.00 lakhs as rangdari. After 2-3 hours, all the petitioners came to the house of the Informant and again insisted that the Informant should vacate the land, description of which has not been mentioned in the fardbeyan. When the Informant protested, the accused persons assaulted him by bamboo. They also tried to broke open the door of the house of the Informant. Due to this occurrence, two persons i.e. Informant and one Vishwanath Mahto got injured. 4. Case diary earlier called for, has been received. It appears that the Informant has sustained grievous injury on his head while other injured has sustained simple injury. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that for the same occurrence, there is case and counter case between the parties. He has further submitted that accused Shibu Pramanik and Sanjay Bhim Thakur have sustained injuries, but the nature of the injury has been kept reserved. It has been further submitted that there was property dispute between the parties and accused persons are claiming the land in question and they are in possession of the said land. It was further submitted that Title Suit has been filed by the 3. accused persons for declaration of their right, title and possession over the said land. It was finally submitted that the Informant was the aggressor and he was trying to evict the petitioners from their peaceful possession, due to which this occurrence has taken place. 6. Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned Special P.P. after going through the case diary of the counter case filed by the accused persons, submitted that the accused Shibu Pramanik and Sanjay Bhim Thakur have sustained injuries and the nature of the injury has been kept reserved. 7. Mr. Robin Kumar, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the Informant. He submits that Title Suit filed by the accused persons has been dismissed for non-prosecution. On which, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that restoration application has been filed and the same is pending. 8. Attention has been drawn towards the plaint of the Title Suit No. 48 of 2007 filed before the court of Munsif, Bokaro by the petitioners. From perusal of which, it appears that the petitioners are claiming their right, title and interest over the said land and they have filed the suit for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over the said land. It appears from the case diary of the counter case filed by the accused persons that witnesses Santosh Pramanik has stated that there was property dispute between the parties and the Informant has constructed a room on the said land despite of injunction by the court and on the date of occurrence, Informant party were trying to put electric pole at the said land, due to which, this occurrence has taken place. 9. In view of the entire facts of this case, it is apparent that there is genuine land dispute between the parties. Both parties are claiming their right, title and possession over the said land. It further appears that for the same occurrence, case and counter case have been instituted and both sides have sustained injuries. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts, petitioners, above named, who are the members of the same family, are directed to surrender before the learned court below within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the learned court below on their surrender, shall release them on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in connection with Chas Mufassil P.S. Case No. 205 of 4 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both parties shall restrain themselves from doing anything towards breach of peace and tranquillity till the final disposal of the Title Suit. Ranjeet/ Uploaded (Ambuj Nath, J)