Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1828 of 2017 Govind Musuf ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. --------- 07/Dated:
17. 07/2017 Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 07 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 07 of 217, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 353 of the I.P.C. When the case is called out, attention was drawn to the last order by which learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to take instruction as to whether petitioner is ready to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the informant as interim compensation in view of the fact that para-37 of the case diary reveals that the informant has received injury. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is ready to pay the aforesaid amount. Be that as it may, I am inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The above named petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below on or before 04.09.2017 and in the event of his arrest or surrender, the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 07 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 110 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and subject to further condition that on the date of surrender, petitioner shall deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- in the court below. On deposition of the aforesaid amount, the court below will issue notice to the informant and on his appearance and after proper verification the court below will release the aforesaid amount in favour of informant. It is made clear that if petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid amount within the stipulated time, the court below will take all coercive steps for apprehending the petitioner and will submit a report to this Court accordingly within four weeks thereafter. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2049 of 2017 Manoj Kr. Saha @ Manoj Saha ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Choudhary, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. --------- 04/Dated:
17. 07/2017 Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 112 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 392 of 2016, registered under Sections 417, 420 of the I.P.C., lodged on the basis of one written report of Vijay Kumar Lakra, Block Cooperative Extension Officer, Rajmahal alleging that a complaint was made in the Jan Sawwad before the Hon'ble Chief Minister, wherein it is alleged that petitioner is the middlemen has taken money from Kamla Beba and Pramila Devi for construction of Indira Awas, which was sanctioned. Case diary was called. Learned APP has filed counter affidavit. From perusal of para-21 & 22 of the case diary, it reveals that Kamla Beba and Pramila Devi has categorically stated in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. that this petitioner has taken Rs. 10,000/- by putting pressure. It appears that under order dated 03.07.2017, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to take instruction from the petitioner as to whether he is ready to deposit Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- each) to be paid to Kamla Beba and Pramila Devi as a condition for bail or not. Today, when the case is called out, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is ready to deposit the aforesaid amount. Be that as it may, I am inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The above named petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below on or before 28.08.2017 and in the event of his arrest or surrender, the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction -2- of S.D.J.M., Rajmahal, in connection with Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 112 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 392 of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and subject to the further condition that on the date of surrender, petitioner shall deposit Rs. 20,000/- in the court. On deposition of the aforesaid amount, the court below will issue notice to the Kamla Beba and Pramila Devi and on their appearance and after proper verification, the court below will release Rs. 10,000/- each to Kamla Beba and Pramila Devi. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2287 of 2017 Md. Danish ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. --------- 03/Dated:
17. 07/2017 It appears that under order dated 28.04.2017, notices were issued to opposite party nos. 2 & 3 and both the parties were directed to remain physically present. Office note dated 14.07.2017 reveals that service report of notice has been received. As per Judge-in-Charge, Dhanbad, notice served upon opposite party nos. 2 & 3 has been received opposite party no. 3, who is father of the opposite party no.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and petitioner are present. Nobody appears on behalf of the opposite party no.
2. List this case on 22.08.2017 for appearance of opposite party nos. 2 & 3. On that date, both petitioner and opposite party nos. 2 & 3 are directed to remain physically present before this Court, so that in their presence, possibility of framing of rehabilitation scheme for the opposite party no. 2 will be explored. Office is directed to call for the case diary. Till then, interim relief granted earlier shall continue. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4007 of 2016 Dipankar Paul ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Another ….. Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. D.K. Karmakar, Advocate. --------- 09/Dated:
17. 07/2017 Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 56 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 1109 of 2016, registered under Sections 498A, 323, 341, 504, 506 / 34, 406 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It appears that under order dated 06.03.2017, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to take instruction from the petitioner as to whether petitioner is ready to pay ad interim maintenance @ Rs. 4,700/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 or not. Today, when the case is called out, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is not in a position to pay Rs. 4,700/- per month to the opposite party no. 2, but he is ready to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 as ad interim maintenance. Be that as it may, I am inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The above named petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of his arrest or surrender, the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of J.M., 1 st Class, Jamshedpur, in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 56 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 1109 of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and also on the following conditions:- (i) Petitioner is directed to pay ad interim maintenance to opposite party no. 2 Madhushree Guha @ Madhushree Paul @ Rs. 4,000/- per month from October, 2016 and shall -2- pay the arrears of ad interim maintenance from October, 2016 to August, 2017 i.e. for eleven months, totaling to Rs. 44,000/- is to be paid on the date of surrender. (ii) Further, after deposition of the aforesaid amount, the opposite party no. 2 will file an application for withdrawal of aforesaid amount and the court below after proper verification shall release the aforesaid amount in favour of the opposite party no.
2. (iii) Further, petitioner is directed to pay the current ad interim maintenance from September, 2017 @ Rs. 4,000/- per month latest to be deposited by 15th day of every month till the disposal of this case and if petitioner defaults to pay the ad-interim maintenance for two successive months, then it is open for the opposite party no. 2 to file an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. (iv) This interim maintenance shall be subject to any appropriate order passed by any competent court of jurisdiction regarding maintenance. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2569 of 2017 Rehana Khatoon ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kr. Chakraverty, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. --------- 03/Dated:
17. 07/2017 It appears that on 10.05.2017, social investigation report of the petitioner was called for from the Principal Probation Officer, Bokaro, which has been received. Case diary has also been received. So, before passing any order, petitioner - Rehana Khatoon is required to be heard. Petitioner - Rehana Khatoon is directed to remain physically present before this Court, so that in her presence, possibility of framing of rehabilitation scheme may be explored, as it appears that she is victim of circumstances. List this case on 03.08.2017. Till then, interim relief granted earlier shall continue. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 826 of 2017 1. Lalita Devi 2. Sri Shakti Bhusan Sharma @ Sakri Bhusan ….. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Arun Kr. Pandey, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate. --------- 05/Dated:
17. 07/2017 On 28.02.2017, notices were issued to opposite party no.
2. Pursuant thereto, petitioners two in numbers and opposite party no. 2 are physically present before this Court. Possibility of reconciliation of dispute through the process of mediation is explored. It appears that the possibility of reconciliation of dispute through the process of mediation could not be explored as there is involvement of third party in the case, who are related to the petitioners. There is some property dispute and probate case is pending before competent court. Learned APP has already filed counter affidavit. List this case on 02.08.2017. Till then, interim relief granted earlier shall continue. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3839 of 2016 Sarif Ansari ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ….. Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Dharmendra Kr. Maltiyar, Adv. --------- 04/Dated:
17. 07/2017 On 22.02.2017, petitioner was directed to deposit the ad interim maintenance @ Rs. 1,500/- per month from January, 2017 and was further directed to deposit the arrears of January, 2017 to March, 2017, total Rs. 4,500/- latest by 21.03.2017 and was further directed to deposit the arrears of April, 2017 to June, 2017, total Rs. 4,500/- latest by 19.06.2017. Parties are present. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has deposited the ad interim maintenance up to June, 2017, total Rs. 9,000/- in the court below. On query, opposite party no. 2 has stated that she has withdraw the aforesaid amount. Possibility of reconciliation of dispute through the process of mediation is explored, but it appears that the stand of the parties are at variance. So, there is no possibility of reconciliation of dispute through the process of the Court, Case diary has not been received. Office is directed to send an express reminder for transmission of the case diary. On the next date, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 will take instruction from opposite party no. 2 as to whether she is inclined to take support of legal services authority for her rehabilitation through any of the nine schemes sponsored by NALSA and supported by JHALSA and DLSA to the extent of ability which commensurates to the status and merit of the opposite party no.
2. Further, father of the opposite party has informed that petitioner is the owner of the three vehicles, one -2- tractor and one tempo, so minimum petitioner shall pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 as ad interim maintenance. This fact is contested by petitioner has stated that he is also a cattle trader. List this case on 08.09.2017. On that date, after going through the case diary and after hearing the parties, final order be passed. In the meanwhile, petitioner is directed to pay the arrears of July, 2017 & August, 2017 ad interim maintenance @ Rs. 1,500/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 before the next date. Till then, interim relief granted earlier shall continue. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2560 of 2017 Munni Devi ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. --------- 03/Dated:
17. 07/2017 Petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 295 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 3225 of 2016, registered under Sections 302, 34 of the I.P.C., lodged on the basis of one written report given by Ghanpat Rana addressed to Officer-in-Charge, Dhanwar P.S. alleging that on 12.12.2016 at 7:30 a.m. his son-in-law Prakash Rana informed him that his daughter Pinki Devi, who is pregnant of three months, is dead and it is alleged that petitioner along with her son (husband of the deceased) tortured the daughter of the informant and they were putting pressure for abortion and due to this, accused persons forcibly got administered her poison and she died. On the basis of these allegations, the instant case has been instituted. It appears that petitioner is mother-in-law of deceased. Case diary was called for. Perusal of case diary, para-14 & 15, it appears that daughter of the informant has taken poison. Be that as it may, I am inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The above named petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of her arrest or surrender, the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 295 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 3225 of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2570 of 2017 1. Ranbir Singh 2. Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Singh ….. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party WITH A.B.A. No. 2548 of 2017 Prince Kumar @ Ritik Kumar ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. --------- 03/Dated:
17. 07/2017 Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 77 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 328 of 2017, registered under Sections 448, 354, 504, 506, 386, 34 of the I.P.C. In view of the fact that there is direct allegation against Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Singh (petitioner no. 2 in A.B.A. No. 2570 of 2017), I am not inclined to admit him on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner - Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Singh is rejected. So, far other petitioners namely, Ranbir Singh and Prince Kumar @ Ritik Kumar are concerned, it appears that investigation of the case is complete and there is no antecedents against these two petitioners. Learned APP has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. Be that as it may, I am inclined to admit the petitioners namely Ranbir Singh and Prince Kumar @ Ritik Kumar on anticipatory bail. The petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of their arrest or surrender, the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioners on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 77 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 328 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2576 of 2017 1. Gopal Choudhary 2. Sobrati Ansari 3. Ahataramul Haque 4. Morif Khan ….. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. --------- 03/Dated:
17. 07/2017 Four petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Karon P.S. Case No. 06 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 124 of 2016, registered under Section 409 of the I.P.C., lodged on the basis of one written report given by Shambhu Thakur, Branch Manager, Deoghar-Jamtara Central Cooperative Bank Limited Branch. It appears that the petitioners are Presidents of PACS and from perusal of written report, it appears from petitioner no. 1 - Gopal Choudhary, there is due of Rs. 4,52,923/- including interest, from petitioner no. 2 - Sobrati Ansari, there is due of of Rs. 2,72,976/-, from petitioner no. 3 - Ahataramul Haque, there is due of 15,82,010/- and from petitioner no. 4 - Morif Khan, there is due of Rs. 9,34,628/-. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a supplementary affidavit showing certain amounts have been deposited by the petitioners. Case diary has been received. It appears that the statement of these four petitioners has not been recorded. Under the said circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to supply the cell numbers of the petitioners to learned APP latest by 24.07.2017. Thereupon, learned APP is directed to transmit the cell numbers of the all the four petitioners to I.O. I.O. is further directed to give 72 hours' notice to petitioners fixing date, time and place, and get their statement recorded and produce the up-to-date case diary on the next date. -2- Petitioners are at liberty to accompany with their counsels of their own choice, who will remain present during recording of the statements of the petitioners by the I.O. I.O. is directed to make arrangement that the learned lawyers remain within visible distance. List this case again on 20.09.2017. On that date, learned APP will produce the up-to-date case diary, so that after going through it and also going through the statement of the petitioners, appropriate order will be passed. Till then, interim relief granted earlier shall continue. Let a copy of order be sent to the court below and also handed over to learned APP for transmission to the I.O. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2555 of 2017 Lala Yadav @ Lalla Yadav ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. --------- 03/Dated:
17. 07/2017 Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Balidih P.S. Case No. 56 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 632 of 2016, registered under Sections 406 / 420 of the I.P.C., lodged on the basis of one written report given by Jivan Singh, alleging that he is working as Supervisor of S.B.I. Transport Ltd., Chas and on 30.03.2016, about 500 bags of cement was loaded on Truck No. JH-09F-4826 from Dalmia Cement Factor to Purulia and driver was one Hira Yadav. It is alleged that the said truck was to be unloaded on 04.04.2016 at Purulia Godown, but the same could not reach till 09.04.2016. Thereafter, he contacted the owner of the truck Lala Yadav, but he could not give satisfactory answer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is admittedly the owner of the truck and the said truck was given on hire basis to one Gulam Mustafa, who was carrying the aforesaid 500 bags of cement to Purulia and cement was not delivered. It is further submitted that the petitioner has asked Mustafa Ansari @ Gulam Mustafa about the said bags of cement, then he had given a cheque of Rs. 1.10 lakhs, but the same was dishonoured, for which C.P. Case No. 378 of 2016 against Md. Gulam Mustaffa was filed in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. Copy of the petition is annexed. So, petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned APP has referred to para-11 of the case diary, this fact has also been recorded in supervision note. In the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, anticipatory bail application filed on the petitioner is rejected. -2- However, petitioner, if so advise, may surrender in the court below and the court below will consider all the aspects of the matter and pass appropriate order. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2392 of 2017 Sambhu Nath Soni @ Sambhu Nath Soni….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party WITH A.B.A. No. 1829 of 2017 Ved Prakash @ Ved Prakash Upadhyay @ Ved Prakash Opadhyay @ Pran Prakas ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate. Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Adv. For the State : A.P.P. --------- 04/Dated:
17. 07/2017 Both the anticipatory bail applications are heard together, as they arise from the same F.I.R. Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Kadma P.S. Case No. 161 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 2623 of 2016, registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 406, 420, 34 of the I.P.C., lodged on the basis of one written report given by one Pabitra Kumar, Chief Manager, Bank of India, Uliyan Branch, Jamshedpur alleging that one Shambhu Nath Soni, who was appointed for expansion of business of the bank and his duty was to promote the bank and to bring some customers. On 16.07.2016, Shambhu Nath Soni has introduced Ved Prakash (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 1829 / 2017), who disclosed himself as a Coal Trader and it is alleged that over draft facility of Rs. 14.84 lacs has been given to Ved Prakash @ Prem Prakash with a direction for submitting the documents for giving cash credit facility and from 18.07.2016 to 03.08.2016, total sum of Rs. 11.65 lacs has been withdrawn, but not submitted the document, inspite of repeated demand by the Bank, he has failed to deposit the aforesaid amount. Learned counsel for the Prem Prakash @ Ved Prakash has submitted that out of Rs. 11.65 lakhs, he has deposited Rs. 2,32,900/-. So, in order to test the bonafide of the petitioner - Prem Prakash @ Ved Prakash, he is directed to deposit -2- Rs. 6,00,000/- before the informant Chief Manager, Bank of India, Uliyan Branch, Jamshedpur on or before 04.09.2017 and submit a receipt to this Court. List these cases on 11.09.2017. On that date, after going through the situation, as to whether petitioner - Prem Prakash @ Ved Prakash has complied the order of this Court or not, further order will be passed. Till then, interim reliefs granted earlier shall continue. Let a copy of order be sent to the court below and also handed over to learned APP for transmission to the I.O. and also sent to the concerned Bank through 'FAX'. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1161 of 2017 1. Raju Mahato 2. Bhalua Mahato @ Bhalua Mahto ….. Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. --------- 02/Dated:
17. 07/2017 This appeal will be heard. Admit. It is submitted that some of the accused have preferred Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1166 of 2017, in which LCR has been called for. List this case along with Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1166 of 2017. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1132 of 2017 1. Noor Mohammad 2. Md. Alam 3. Siraj Ansari @ Md. Siraj 4. Adin Mian @ Md. Adin 5. Amir Hanza @ Amir Hamza 6. Hussain Mian 7. Firoz Mian @ Md. Firoz 8. Ali Ansari @ Md. Ali 9. Basruddin Main @ Basruddin 10. Geni Mian ….. Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Roy, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. --------- 02/Dated:
17. 07/2017 This appeal will be heard. Admit. Call for the LCR. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1071 of 2017 with I.A. No. 4897 of 2017 1. George Dungdung 2. Mojesh Kullu ….. Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. --------- 02/Dated:
17. 07/2017 This appeal will be heard. Admit. Call for the LCR. I.A. No. 4897/2017 will be considered after receipt of the LCR. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1065 of 2017 with I.A. No. 4879 of 2017 Raju Tiwary @ Raju Kumar Tiwary ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Santosh Kr. Tiwari, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. --------- 04/Dated:
17. 07/2017 This appeal will be heard. Admit. Call for the LCR. I.A. No. 4879/2017 will be considered after receipt of the LCR. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 877 of 2017 1.Jai Kumar Pandey @ Jay Kumar Pandey 2.Abhishek Pandey @ A.K. Pandey 3.Radheshyam Pandey 4.Shiv Kumar Pandey ….. Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. --------- 04/Dated:
17. 07/2017 Learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw this appeal. Permission is accorded. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as not pressed. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 620 of 2017 1.Laxmi Chatterjee 2.Mithu Ghoshal 3.Purnashish Ghoshal 4.Itu Mukharjee @ Itu Mukherji 5.Kumkum Mukherjee @ Kumkum Mukherji….. Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ….. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Afaque Rashidi, Advocate. --------- 05/Dated:
17. 07/2017 List this case along with A.B.A. No. 595 of 2017. Till then, interim relief granted earlier shall continue. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 407 of 2017 Suresh Saw @ Chhoti Saw @ Suesh Saw ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ….. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. S.K. Murty, Advocate. --------- 05/Dated:
17. 07/2017 It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial of the case has already concluded. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is dismissed. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 809 of 2015 Nakul Mandal ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ….. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Appellant : Mr. P.C. Sinha, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. --------- 05/Dated:
17. 07/2017 Sole appellant has faced the trial in Sessions Trial No. 296 of 2006 before the Court of Sri Pradeep Kumar Chourasia, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Deoghar, who under judgment dated 31.08.2017 has held the appellant guilty under Sections 335/341 of the I.P.C. and further awarded sentence to undergo S.I. for three years and shall pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for having committed offence under Section 335 of I.P.C. and in default of pay the fine, he shall further undergo S.I. for three months and he shall also pay Rs. 500/- for having committed offence under Section 341 of the I.P.C. and in default to pay the fine, he shall further undergo S.I. for 15 days. Appeal was filed on 03.10.2015 and it was listed before the Bench on 01.12.2015 and prayer was made for listing this case after two weeks. Further, it was listed after 1½ year. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he may be granted four weeks time to enable the appellant to get surrender and file surrender certificate. List this case after four weeks. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1180 of 2017 Alok Singh ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. --------- 04/Dated:
17. 07/2017 Sole appellant has preferred an application under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 07.06.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, S.C. & S.T. (POA) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.C. / S.T. Case No. 05 of 2017, which arises out of Rehla P.S. Case No. 08 of 2017, registered under Sections 341, 323, 307, 353, 332, 504, 506, 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 (x)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, lodged on the basis of one written report given by Bhaso Rajak, whereby the learned Special Judge has rejected the prayer for bail of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is in custody since 23.02.2017. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to add informant - Bhaso Rajak as respondent no. 2 and shall take steps for service of notice on respondent no. 2, for which requisites etc., under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process, must be filed within 10 days. In the meanwhile, office is directed to call for the case diary. Be that as it may, keeping in view the fact that the appellant is custody since 23.02.2017, appellant, above named, is directed to be released on provisional bail till 10.10.2017 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, S.C. & S.T. (POA) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj, in connection with Rehla P.S. Case No. 08 of 2017, corresponding to S.C. / S.T. Case No. 05 of 2017. -2- List this case 15.09.2017, on that date, both the parties are directed to remain physically present before this Court, so that in their presence, possibility of framing of rehabilitation scheme for the respondent no. 2 may be explored. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1155 of 2017 Deepak Kumar Sahu ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. --------- 10/Dated:
17. 07/2017 Sole appellant has preferred an application under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 08.03.2017 passed by learned AJC-I, Ranchi in B.P. No. 1952 of 2016, which arises out of Chanho P.S. Case No. 44 of 2016, registered under Sections 376, 323, 342, 504, 506 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 (1)(ii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, lodged on the basis of one written report given by Kusum Devi, whereby the learned Special Judge has rejected the prayer for bail of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is in custody since 03.02.2017. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to add informant - Kusum Devi as respondent no. 2 and shall take steps for service of notice on respondent no. 2, for which requisites etc., under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process, must be filed within 10 days. In the meanwhile, office is directed to call for the case diary. Be that as it may, keeping in view the fact that the appellant is custody since 03.02.2017, appellant, above named, is directed to be released on provisional bail till 09.10.2017 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.J.C.-I, Ranchi, in connection with Chanho P.S. Case No. 44 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 3208 of 2016. List this case 14.09.2017, on that date, both the parties are directed to remain physically present before this Court, so that in their presence, possibility of framing of rehabilitation scheme for the respondent no. 2 may be explored. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1125 of 2017 1.Kisun Mahto 2.Ashok Kumar Mahto @ Ashok Kumar 3.Raj Kumar 4.Naresh Kumar 5.Kalawati Devi ….. Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. --------- 04/Dated:
17. 07/2017 Five appellants have preferred an application under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 07.06.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-3rd, Hazaribag in A.B.P. No. 395 of 2017, which arises out of Sadar (SC/ST) P.S. Case No. 02 of 2017, G.R. No. 155/2017, registered under Sections 341, 323, 427, 504, 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, lodged on the basis of one written report given by Suraj Kumar Paswan, whereby the learned Special Judge has rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant in terms of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. The informant has appeared through learned counsel Sudhir Kumar Mahto. Let the name of Sri Sudhir Kumar Mahto be reflected in the cause list on behalf of the informant. In the meanwhile, office is directed to call for the case diary. List this case 13.09.2017, on that date, both the parties are directed to remain physically present before this Court, so that in their presence, possibility of framing of rehabilitation scheme for the informant may be explored. Till then, no coercive steps shall be taken against the appellants, in connection with Sadar (SC/ST) P.S. Case No. 02 of 2017, G.R. No. 155/2017, pending in the court of C.J.M., Hazaribagh. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1043 of 2017 1. Rita Devi 2. Dharmajeet Kumar 3. Chandmoti Devi ….. Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ….. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. --------- 04/Dated:
17. 07/2017 Five appellants have preferred an application under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 27.03.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur in A.B.P. No. 253 of 2017, which arises out of C-1 Case No. 579 of 2016, registered under Sections 323, 379, 504, 506, 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, lodged on the basis of one written report given by Rita Devi, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant in terms of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act with a direction to surrender before the learned court below within 15 days. Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to take steps for service of notice on respondent no. 2, for which requisites etc., under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process, must be filed within 10 days. Since, this is a complaint case, let LCR be called for from the court concerned. List this case 20.09.2017, on that date, both the parties are directed to remain physically present before this Court, so that in their presence, possibility of framing of rehabilitation scheme for the opposite party no. 2 may be explored. Till then, no coercive steps shall be taken against the appellants, in connection with C-1 Case No. 579 of 2016, pending in the court of J.M., 1st Class, Jamshedpur. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 95 of 2017 Manoj Das ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ….. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Rahul, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. --------- 09/Dated:
17. 07/2017 It appears that under order dated 10.04.2017, notices were issued to opposite party no. 2 by both the modes. Service report of notice sent through the process of the court has been received with the report of Judge-in-Charge, Jamshedpur that notice has been received by Ravi Murmu, but nobody appears on behalf of the opposite party no.
2. Further, learned APP has received the case diary and has filed counter affidavit. From perusal of para-7 of the counter affidavit, which refers para-32 of the case diary, it appears that appellant has earlier moved in Cr.M.P. No. 7322 of 2016 for quashing of entire criminal proceeding and no coercive action was passed against the appellant. Office is directed to call for the record of Cr.M.P. No. 7322 of 2016. List this case after three weeks. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1019 of 2017 Gauri Shankar Singh ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. --------- 10/Dated:
17. 07/2017 Sole appellant has preferred an application under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 05.05.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in A.B.P. No. 89 of 2017, which arises out of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 16 of 2012, G.R. No. 341 of 2012, registered under Sections 366(A), 367 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 / 4 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, lodged on the basis of one written report given by Matlu Lohra, whereby the learned Special Judge has rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant in view of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to add informant - Matlu Lohra as respondent no. 2 and shall take steps for service of notice on respondent no. 2, for which requisites etc., under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process, must be filed within 10 days. In the meanwhile, office is directed to call for the case diary. List this case 18.09.2017, on that date, both the parties are directed to remain physically present before this Court, so that in their presence, possibility of framing of rehabilitation scheme for the daughter and niece of the informant may be explored. Till then, no coercive steps shall be taken against the appellant, in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 16 of 2012, G.R. No. 341 of 2012, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Gumla. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 575 of 2017 1. Chandan Sao 2. Gunjan Sao 3. Sarju Sao @ Sarju Saw ….. Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ….. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Appellants : Mr. R.N. Singh, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. --------- 03/Dated:
17. 07/2017 Three appellants namely Chandan Sao, Gunjan Sao and Sarju Sao @ Sarju Saw have preferred this appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for grant of regular bail, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 07.03.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palamau in B.P. No. 145 of 2017, arising out of Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 36 of 2016 dated 03.06.2016 registered under Sections 341, 323, 379, 504, 506 of I.P.C. & Section 3 / 4 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, lodged on the basis of one written report given by Sanjay Choudhary, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail of the appellants. On 24.04.2017, appellant no. 3 Sarju Sao @ Sarju Saw was admitted on bail taking into consideration his age and further notices were issued to the respondent no. 2 and case diary was called for. Office note reveals that notice has been received by respondent no. 2, but he failed to appear. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that no case under Section 3 / 4 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out and in support of the submission he has relied on the Division Bench judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi reported in ILR(2002) 2 Del 237 in the case of D.P.Vats Vs. Sate and Ors., wherein Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court has held that to constitute an offence under the provision of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, person making alleged derogatory -2- utterance must know that the person whom he is intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate him in the name of caste belongs to SC or ST, which has been followed by the High Court of Delhi in the case of MS Gayatri @ Apurna Singh Vs. State & Anr. in W.P.(CRL) No.3083/2016 delivered on 03.07.2017. Although, learned APP opposed the prayer for bail and referred to para-6 & 7 of the case diary with considerable force. In view of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, the order dated 07.03.2017 is set aside. The appellants namely Chandan Sao and Gunjan Saw are directed to release on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of ACJM, Palamau at Daltonganj, in connection with Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 36 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 921 of 2016. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. xxxx of 201x xxx ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. xxx, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. --------- xx/Dated:
17. 07/2017 Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with xxx P.S. Case No. xx of xx, corresponding to G.R. No. xx of xx, registered under Section xx of the I.P.C. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that xxxx. Learned APP has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. Be that as it may, I am inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The above named petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within three weeks from the date of this order and in the event of his arrest or surrender, the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of xxxxxx, in connection with xxxxx P.S. Case No. xxx of xxxx, corresponding to G.R. No. xxxx of xxxx, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/