1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5611 of 2017 Arman Mansuri, S/o Md. Asique, R/o VillageSukurhutu, PO&PSKanke, DistrictRanchi …. Petitioner versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party with B.A. No. 5568 of 2017 Raja Ram Mahto, son of Sibu Mahto, resident of Sukurhuttu, PO&PSKanke, DistrictRanchi …. Petitioner versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party with B.A. No. 5613 of 2017 Suhail Mansuri, son of Jahir Mansoori, resident of village Sukurhutu, POSukurhutu, PSKanke, Jharkhand …. Petitioner versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party with B.A. No. 5628 of 2017 Samnoor Mansoori @ Sabnoor Mansoori, son of Abdul Wahab Mansoori, resident of villageSukurhuttu, PO&PSKanke, DistrictRanchi …. Petitioner versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party with B.A. No. 5681 of 2017 1. Rahul Mansuri @ Rahul Mansoori, S/o Rahees Mansuri 2. Minhaz Hussain, S/o Sajib Mansuri 3. Irshad Mansuri @ Irshad Mansoori, S/o Kudus Mansuri. All R/o villageSukurhuttu, PO&PSKanke, DistrictRanchi …. Petitioners versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party with B.A. No. 5727 of 2017 1. Sabid Ansari, S/o Late Sahijan Ansari 2. Sahil Ansari, S/o Late Abid Ansari 3. Md. Ataul Haque @ Md. Atahul Haque @ Ataul Haque, S/o Azharul Haque All residents of villageSukurhuttu, PO&PSKanke, District Ranchi 2 4. Afizul Ansari @ Hafizul Ansari @ Hafijul Ansari, S/o Hatim Ansari, R/o villageParhepat, PO&PSRatu, District Ranchi …. Petitioners versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party with B.A. No. 5734 of 2017 1. Irfan Ansari @ Md. Irfan Ansari, S/o Ainul Ansari, R/o villageSoba, PO&PSBudmu, DistrictRanchi 2. Sohrab Mansuri @ Sohrab Mansoori, S/o Jasmuddin Mansuri @ Jasmuddin Mansoori 3. Afroz Alam, S/o Late Noushad Mansuri @ Naushad Mansuri Both petitioner nos. 2 & 3 R/o village Sukurhuttu, PO&PS Kanke, DistrictRanchi …. Petitioners versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party with B.A. No. 5926 of 2017 Md. Majhar @ Majhar Mansuri @ Mazhar Mansuri, son of Reyasat Mansuri, resident of Sukurhuttu, POSukurhuttu, PSKanke, DistrictRanchi …. Petitioner versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party with B.A. No. 5978 of 2017 1. Binod Sahu, son of Julak Nath Sahu 2. Dilip Sahu, son of Chandrakant Sahu 3. Anand Kumar Sahu, son of Chandrakant Sahu 4. Kunal Sahu, son of Arun Sahu 5. Ashok Sahu, son of Arun Sahu 6. Naresh Mahto @ Sahu, son of Mahabalar Mahto 7. Suresh Sahu @ Suraj Sahu, son of Jai Prakash Sahu 8. Madhusudan Sahu, son of Santosh Sahu 9. Pradeep Sahu, son of Parmanand Sahu 10. Rajesh Kumar Mahto, son of Babulal Mahto 11. Vikash Kumar Sahu, son of Bigan Sahu 12. Mohan Kumar Baitha, son of Koka Baitha 13. Yogenda Mahto, son of Ghuran Mahto 14. Rajesh Kumar Mahto, son of Sohan Lal Mahto 15. Rohit Kumar, son of Harilal Mahto 16. Sanjay Mahto, S/oTirath Nath Mahto 17. Mahraj Mahto, son of Sidhu Mahto All Nos. 1 to 17 are residents of Shukurhuttu, PO&PSKanke, DistrictRanchi 18. Yogendra Mahto, son of Matan Mahto, resident of Baruadi, PO&PSBurmu, DistrictRanchi 3 19. Vikas Kumar, son of Chandan Sahu, resident of Choreya, PO&PSChanho, DistrictRanchi …. Petitioners versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party with B.A. No. 6027 of 2017 1. Irfan Mansuri @ Irfan Mansoori, son of Chand Mansoori 2. Abdul Rahman, son of Kamaluddin 3. Abdul Kadir Jilani @ A. Q. Jilani, son of Md. Kamaluddin 4. Abdul Rehan Mansoori @ Abdul Rehan Mansuri, son of Jaan Mohammad 5. Salman Mansoori @ Salman Mansuri, son of Usman Mansoori 6. Imran Hussain, son of Nur Mohammad 7. Md. Sabani Mansoori @ Md. Sabbani, son of Jaan Mohammad 8. Minhaj Ansari @ Minhaz Ansari, son of Wazir Ansari All residents of Shukurhuttu, PO&PSKanke, DistrictRanchi …. Petitioners versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party with B.A. No. 6186 of 2017 Asif Eqbal @ Asif Ansari, son of Md. Aslam Ansari, resident of villageSukurhuttu, PO&PSKanke, DistrictRanchi ...Petitioner versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Neeta Krishna, Adv.(in B.A.No.5611/17) Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.(in B.A. No 5568/17) Mr. D.K. Maltiyar, Adv.(in B.A. No 5613/17) Mr. Rupesh Singh, Adv.(in B.A. No 5628/17) Mr. Rupesh Singh, Adv.(in B.A. No 5681/17) Mr. Rupesh Singh, Adv.(in B.A. No 5727/17) Mr. Rupesh Singh, Adv.(in B.A. No5734/17) Mr. Saibal Mitra, Adv.(in B.A. No 5926/17) Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.(in B.A. No.5978/17) Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.(in B.A. No.6027/17) Mr. R.R. Ravidas, Adv.(in B.A. No.6186/17) For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP(in B.A. No 5611/17) Mr. Vikash Kishore, APP(in B.A. No 5568/17) Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, APP(in B.A. No.5613/17) Mr. Deepak Kumar, APP(in B.A. No 5628/17) 4 Mr. Suraj Verma, APP(in B.A. No 5681/17) Mr. Suraj Verma, APP(in B.A. No 5727/17) Mr. V.K. Gupta, APP(in B.A. No 5734/17) Mr. Sanjay Kumar, APP(in B.A. No 5926/17) Mr. Anjani Kr. Toppo, APP (in B.A.No.5978/17) Mr. Tapas Roy, APP(in B.A. No.6027/17) Mr. V.K. Gupta, APP(in B.A. No.6186/17) 03/20.09.2017 All the accusedpetitioners were named in the First Information Report vide Kanke P.S. Case No. 70 of 2017 which was registered on 06.06.2017 for offences under sections 147/148/149/152/153/332/333/337/338/307/ 353/ 427 IPC, section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and section 27 of Arms Act. The petitioner in B.A. No. 5611 of 2017 claims that he is a student of B.Com in Marwari College, Ranchi and he has no criminal antecedent. However, criminal antecedent report of the petitioner has not been produced by the investigating officer. The petitioner in B.A. No. 5568 of 2017 claims that he is posted as Correspondence Clerk in Water Resources Department, Ranchi. However, counteraffidavit in this case has not been filed. The petitioner in B.A. No. 5613 of 2017 asserts that he has no criminal antecedent nor he has ever been proceeded under section 107 Cr.P.C. No affidavit has been filed by the State in this case. The petitioner in B.A. No. 5628 of 2017 claims that his ancestors were active participants and contributed in the construction of Lord Shiva Temple in villageSukurhutu and he is a social activist who has taken pains to organise social gatherings for the two communities. By filing an application being I.A. (Cr.) No. 6369 of 2017, he has disclosed cases against him. A counteraffidavit has been filed in which the investigating officer has attested those facts. 5 The petitioners in B.A. No. 5681 of 2017 have asserted that they have no criminal antecedent. No counteraffidavit has been filed by the State in this case. There are four petitioners in B.A. No. 5727 of 2017. The petitioners have asserted that they have no criminal antecedent. No counteraffidavit has been filed in this case. There are three petitioners in B.A. No. 5734 of 2017. The petitioners have asserted that they have no criminal antecedent. In the counteraffidavit, criminal antecedent of the petitioners has not been disclosed. The petitioner in B.A. No. 5926 of 2017 asserts that he is working under the Hindustan Petroleum (LPG Dealer). He has disclosed that there are two other cases vide, Kanke P.S. Case No. 21 of 2017 and Kanke P.S. Case No. 22 of 2017 registered against him. There are 19 petitioners in B.A. No. 5978 of 2017; all were named in the First Information Report. They have pleaded that they have no criminal antecedent. In the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the State, statement made in paragraph no. 16 of this bail application regarding criminal antecedent of the petitioners has not been controverted. There are eight petitioners in this bail application vide, B.A. No. 6027 of 2017; they all were named in the First Information Report. They have averred that they are dailywage workers and they have no criminal antecedent. In the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the State, it has been stated that the investigating officer is in the process of collecting information on criminal antecedent of the petitioners. The petitioner in B.A. No. 6186 of 2017 has though not asserted that he has no criminal antecedent, in the 6 counteraffidavit, any criminal antecedent of the petitioner has not been disclosed. In the First Information Report it is stated that when officer incharge of Kanke Police Station got an information regarding communal violence between members of two communities at villageSukurhutu, he alongwith the police force arrived there. They tried to pacify members of both the communities who were armed variously with dangerous weapons, however, they were aggressively trying to hurt each other. The mob was so violent that initially the police party was unable to control them. In the meantime, senior police officers and officers from the administration arrived there. Finally, the police party had to fire in the air to disperse the mob. In the incident, officer incharge of Kanke Police Station namely, Rajiv Ranjan suffered head injury and government vehicles were damaged. Several incriminating articles such as swords, Baluwa, Daw etc. were recovered from the place of occurrence. Order dated 24.08.2017 records that accusedpetitioners in this batch of bail applications have raised almost identical grounds for bail. It is contended that no specific overt act has been attributed to any of the petitioners. They have denied being part of the mob which allegedly was involved in the occurrence. Moreover, the person who caused head injury to the officer incharge has not been identified. It is stated that the immediate instigation which led to the occurrence was, on account of accusedSakir Mansoori and Irshad Mansoori allegedly found consuming Ganja which was objected to by Vijay Sao and Babu Sao. The learned A.P.Ps opposing the prayer for bail submit that before these applications are finally decided criminal antecedent of these petitioners needs to be verified. They 7 are seeking adjournment for filing affidavits though, as many as three opportunities have already been granted. From the materials produced in the present proceeding, I find that occurrence as alleged by the prosecution is not disputed. What is disputed is presence of the petitioners on the spot, when the alleged occurrence took place. The prosecution has pleaded that the police officers present there have identified the accused persons and now a chargesheet has been submitted. The petitioners are in judicial custody since 06.06.2017. No doubt, communal violence affects the peace and harmony in the society, however, after the chargesheet has been submitted in this case, in view of the evidence collected during the investigation keeping such large number of persons in judicial custody would not serve any purpose and, instead appropriate conditions may be imposed for granting provisional bail to the accusedpetitioners, awaiting final report on criminal antecedent of the petitioners. Default on the part of State is another reason, why I am inclined to extend the benefit of provisional bail to these applicantpetitioners. In the aforesaid facts, the petitioners, abovenamed, namely, Arman Mansuri (in B.A. No. 5611 of 2017), Raja Ram Mahto (in B.A. No. 5568 of 2017), Suhail Mansuri (in B.A. No. 5613 of 2017), Samnoor Mansoori @ Sabnoor Mansoori (in B.A. No. 5628 of 2017), 1. Rahul Mansuri @ Rahul Mansoori, 2. Minhaz Hussain and 3. Irshad Mansuri @ Irshad Mansoori (in B.A. No. 5681 of 2017), 1.Sabid Ansari, 2. Sahil Ansari, 3. Md. Ataul Haque @ Md. Atahul Haque @ Ataul Haque and 4. Afizul Ansari @ Hafizul Ansari @ Hafijul Ansari (in B.A. No. 5727 of 2017), 1.Irfan Ansari @ Md. Irfan Ansari, 2. Sohrab Mansuri @ Sohrab Mansoori, and 3.Afroz Alam (in B.A. No. 5734 of 2017), Md. Majhar @ 8 Majhar Mansuri @ Mazhar Mansuri (in B.A. No. 5926 of 2017), 1. Binod Sahu, 2. Dilip Sahu, 3. Anand Kumar Sahu, 4. Kunal Sahu, 5. Ashok Sahu, 6. Naresh Mahto @ Sahu, 7.Suresh Sahu @ Suraj Sahu, 8. Madhusudan Sahu, 9. Pradeep Sahu, 10. Rajesh Kumar Mahto, 11. Vikash Kumar Sahu, 12. Mohan Kumar Baitha, 13. Yogenda Mahto, 14.Rajesh Kumar Mahto, 15. Rohit Kumar, 16. Sanjay Mahto, 17. Mahraj Mahto, 18. Yogendra Mahto and 19. Vikas Kumar (in B.A. No. 5978 of 2017), 1.Irfan Mansuri @ Irfan Mansoori, 2. Abdul Rahman, 3. Abdul Kadir Jilani @ A. Q. Jilani, 4. Abdul Rehan Mansoori @ Abdul Rehan Mansuri, 5. Salman Mansoori @ Salman Mansuri, 6. Imran Hussain, 7. Md. Sabani Mansoori @ Md. Sabbani and 8. Minhaj Ansari @ Minhaz Ansari (in B.A. No. 6027 of 2017), Asif Eqbal @ Asif Ansari (in B.A. No. 6186 of 2017) are directed to be released on provisional bail, if not wanted in connection to any other case, on each one of them furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each; one of the bailors shall be a ClassI legal heir/Sharer of the accusedpetitioner(s), to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Kanke P.S. Case No. 70 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 2849 of 2017, on the following conditions: (i) they shall appear on each and every date during the trial, but for the special circumstance in which they may file appropriate application before the trial Court seeking exemption from appearance, (ii) they shall not change their place of residence till conclusion of the trial without permission of the Court. They shall file document regarding their place of residence which shall be physically verified by the 9 investigating officer and a report in this regard shall be filed in the trial Court, within four weeks, (iii) the petitioners shall surrender their passport in the Court below and, if any of the petitioners does not possess passport he shall file an affidavit in this regard, which fact shall be verified by the investigating officer and he shall file a report in this regard in the trial Court within four weeks, (iv) after their release on bail the petitioners shall not organise any dharna, protest, procession or any kind of gathering which may disturb the peace and tranquility in the society or create law and order problem till the conclusion of the trial in the present case. It is made clear that if they are found involved in any kind of protest, dharna, procession etc. their bail bonds may be cancelled by the trial Court without any notice to them, (v) as compensation they shall deposit Rs.15,000/ each, within six weeks, in the trial Court after they are released on provisional bail. The aforesaid amount shall be transferred in the account of Jharkhand Police Sahay Avam Kalyan Kosh, and (vi) they shall report to the officer incharge, Kanke Police Station between 9 a.m to 10 a.m every fortnight, and a report on their conduct shall be submitted to the trial Court every month by the officer incharge, Kanke Police Station and also produced before this Court on or before the next date of hearing. Post all these matters on 10.11.2017. On default by the State, it needs to be recorded that inspite of opportunities granted the investigating officer has failed to file an affidavit on the criminal antecedent of the petitioners in this batch of bail applications. A detailed order was passed on 24.08.2017 and thereafter, these bail 10 applications were listed on 14.09.2017. On the request of the learned A.P.Ps further time was granted for filing affidavit in all the matters, however, affidavits in response to most of the bail applications have not been filed. A preliminary report on criminal antecedent of the accused petitioners has also not been filed. Copies of the aforesaid orders were communicated to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi. This one aspect perhaps requires initiation of disciplinary proceeding against these officers. In the above facts, issue notice to the investigating officer and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, why a proceeding for willful noncompliance of orders passed by this Court be not initiated against them. Registry to issue notice under Rule 392 read with Rule 393 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 to the investigating officer of Kanke P.S. Case No. 70 of 2017 and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, who shall file their showcause reply within next four weeks. Let a copy of this order be given to all the learned A.P.Ps in this batch of bail applications. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the trial Court through FAX. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Tanuj/SI/Amit