Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5970 of 2017 1. Prahlad Prasad Sah 2. Muchkund Kumar @ Mukchun Sah 3. Pawan Sah @ Pawan Kumar Sah 4. Vikash Sah @ Vikash Kumar Sah 5. Uma Shankar Sah @ Uma Shankar Gupta … … Petitioners versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY -------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate For the State : Addl. P.P. --------- Order No. 02: Dated:
6. h November, 2017 Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Palajori P.S. Case No. 138 of 2015 (G.R. No. 1121 of 2015) registered under Sections 341, 323, 307, 379, 504, 279, 427, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners by drawing the attention of this Court at page 27 to 29 of the brief, which is also copies of the bail bond submitted by the petitioners before police, submits that petitioners 1,3 & 5 were granted police bail and after investigation the police, inter-alia, submitted charge-sheet for the offence punishable u/s 341/323/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner nos. 1, 3 & 5 whereas the petitioner nos. 2 & 4 were not sent up for trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 28.03.2017, a copy of which is kept to the page no. 34 of the bail application, cognizance has been taken against all the five petitioners for the offence punishable u/s 341, 323, 307, 379, 504, 279, 427, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners by referring the judgment of this Court passed in A.B.A. No. 1320 of 2011 in the case of Dinesh Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2011 (3) JLJR253submits that it is settled principle of law that if the petitioner was previously on bail, only because of cognizance has been taken for the offence which are non bailable subsequently bail should not be refused. It is further submitted that causing hurt to Bhola Yadav and the son of the informant Munna Yadav is false, therefore, the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. In this anticipatory bail application, the question of law involved is that when during course of investigation, the petitioner no. 1,3 and 5 were granted bail by police and after completion of investigation, police has submitted final form No. 184 of 2016 dated 30.12.2016 under section 341/323/504/506/34 of Indian Penal Code, and all the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused sent up for trial are bailable in nature but differing with the opinion of the police the court belwo has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under section 341/323/307/379/504/279/427/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, whether this anticipatory bail application is maintainable or not in view of the fact that the police bail of the petitioner were not cancelled by the court below In this case it appears that the question of law as to whether anticipatory bail application of the petitioner no.1, 3 & 5 is maintainbale or not has not been decided by the court below and the prayer of anticipatory bail have been rejected on merit. A coordinate bench of this Court in A.B.A. No. 2775 of 2016 (Pradeep singh Vrs. State of Jharkhand) on 21.03.2017 has decided this question of law by holding as under: “Admittedly, in all these cases, the bail bond furnished by the petitioners, while the petitioners were either on police bail or on bail granted by the court below, have not been cancelled, nor the bonds were forfeited. So, taking all these facts and the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Division bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Bishnudeo Sahu (2011(1)P.L.J.R. 731), I am of the view that the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioners are not maintainable. Accordingly, all the anticipatory bail application are hereby dismissed as not maintainable.” In this case also the bail bonds furnished by the petitioner no. 1,3 &5 while they were on police bail have not been cancelled nor were the bail bonds forfeited by the court belwo. So, in view of the order of this court in the case of Pradeep Singh (supra), I am of view that the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner no. 1,3 & 5 is not maintainable, hence rejected. However, the petitioner no. 1,3 & 5 are directed to surrender before the court below within six weeks from the date of the order and they will furnish undertaking that they shall cooperate in the trial and shall remain present as and when their presence is required by the court below and the court below is directed to allow the petitioner no. 1,3 & 5 to remain on bail granted earlier by the police keeping in view that the petitioners have never misused the privilege of bail. Considering the submissions of the counsel and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the petitioner no. 2 & 4, named above, be admitted to anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail on depositing Rs. 5,000/- each as interim compensation and furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Madhupur in connection with Palajori P.S. Case No. 138 of 2015 (G.R. No. 1121 of 2015) subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.. In case the petitioner nos. 2 & 4 deposit the interim compensation, the court below is directed to issue notice to the informant and his son Munna Yadav and on proper identification, the court below shall forthwith release the amount in their favour forthwith in equal proportion. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) MM