Gopal Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2250 of 2016 Gopal Singh …… Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Sushshma Kumari …… Opposite Parties ­­­­­­­­­ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH For the Petitioner :Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, Advocate For the State : A.P.P 02/Dated: 30/09/2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed with prayer to modify the order dated 20.09.2016, passed in I.A. No. 6234 of 2016 filed in A.B.A. No. 2613 of 2016 by the opposite party no. 2 with a prayer to vacate the interim relief granted to the petitioner vide order dated 31.08.2016 who is husband of opposite party no.2 in the said interlocutory application it has been mentioned that during pendency of the anticipatory bail application process of 82 Cr.P.C. has already been issued on 20.07.2016 and this fact has not been brought to the notice of the Court. The present Cr.M.P has been filed on 26.09.2016. From perusal of record, it appears that on 20.07.2016, learned S.D.J.M issued process of 82 Cr.P.C against the petitioner and anticipatory bail application bearing No. 2613 of 2016 was filed on 11.07.2016 and admitted on 13.07.2016, thereafter I.A. No. 6234 of 2016 has been filed by Opposite party no. 2 stating that process of 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner by the learned court below on 20.07.2016, the anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Further, it appears that the petitioner has filed a quashing application as Cr.M.P No. 1867 of 2016 on 11.08.2016 for quashing the proceeding and the order issuing of process under section 82 Cr.P.C which was set­aside by the co­oridante Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.09.2016. As the anticipatory bail application has been filed on 11.07.2016 and interim relief was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 31.08.2016 and process of 82 Cr.P.C has been issued on 20.07.2016, so the anticipatory bail application was not maintainable. It was submitted that admittedly, the petitioner mislead the Court by concealing and suppressing the fact about the issuance of process under section 82 Cr.P.C. After going through the entire records, I find no merit in this application. After some arguments learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this Cr.M.P with liberty to file fresh anticipatory bail application as it was submitted that till date no fresh process of 82 Cr.P.C has been issued against the petitioner. Permission is granted. Accordingly, the present Cr.M.P No. 2250 of 2016 is dismissed as not pressed. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satyarthi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 2409 of 2016 Yunush Khan …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party ­­­­­­­­­ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH For the Petitioner :Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate For the State : A.P.P 05/Dated: 30/09/2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No. 48 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 283 of 2015, for the offence registered under sections 379, 411, 414, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion. Though, it is alleged that the iron scrap were stolen from Abhitjit Power Plant, but no theft report has been lodged by the said company. Learned A.P.P opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. Considering that iron scrap has been recovered in front of house of the petitioner and no valid document was produced, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satyarthi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 3663 of 2016 Abdul Barik …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party ­­­­­­­­­ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH For the Petitioner :Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate For the State : A.P.P 04/Dated: 30/09/2016 After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application. Prayer is granted. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed as not pressed. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satyarthi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 2889 of 2016 Suman Kumar @ Suman Rajak @ Sumon Kumar Rajak …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party ­­­­­­­­­ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH For the Petitioner :Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate For the State : A.P.P 04/Dated: 30/09/2016 Pursuant to order dated 06.09.2016, learned counsel for the petitioner filed copy of two orders passed by this Court in A.B.A. No. 2643 of 2013 and A.B.A. No. 4404 of 2013, whereby this Court directed the petitioners in the aforesaid applications to file application for bail before Juvenile Justice Board as per the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000. So, this matter required consideration. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides power to bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law. Learned A.P.P and learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to address this Court as to whether in terms of provision of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, provision of 438 Cr.P.C is excluded or not. List this case on 22.11.2016. Till then, interim relief granted earlier shall continue. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satyarthi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 2250 of 2016 Suman Kumar @ Suman Rajak @ Sumon Kumar Rajak …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party ­­­­­­­­­ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH For the Petitioner :Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate For the State : A.P.P 04/Dated: 30/09/2016 Pursuant to order dated 06.09.2016, learned counsel for the petitioner filed copy of two orders passed by this Court in A.B.A. No. 2643 of 2013 and A.B.A. No. 4404 of 2013, whereby this Court directed the petitioners in the aforesaid applications to file application for bail before Juvenile Justice Board as per the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000. So, this matter required consideration. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides power to bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law. Learned A.P.P and learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to address this Court as to whether in terms of provision of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, provision of 438 Cr.P.C is excluded or not. List this case on 22.11.2016. Till then, interim relief granted earlier shall continue. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satyarthi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 3478 of 2016 Gopi Paswan …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party ­­­­­­­­­ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH For the Petitioner :Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate For the State : A.P.P 04/Dated: 30/09/2016 When the case is called out, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that process of 82 Cr.P.C has been issued against the petitioner. In view of above submission, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed as not maintainable. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satyarthi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2244 of 2015 Baby Devi @ Baby Devi Verma …… Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Pawan Kumar Verma @ Sintu Verma …… Opposite Party ­­­­­­­­­ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH For the Petitioner :Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, Advocate For the State : A.P.P For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Saibal Kr. Laik, Advocate 08/Dated: 30/09/2016 An interlocutory application being I.A. No. 6474 of 2016 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for withdrawal of the this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stating therein that the joint compromise petition filed before the learned Trial Court on 11.08.2016 on the basis of compromise petition, the petitioner along with other co­ accused persons have been acquitted from Trial Court. In view of above submission, I.A. No.6474 of 2016 is allowed. Accordingly, the present Cr.M.P No. 2244 of 2015 is dismissed as withdrawn. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satyarthi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 132 of 2011 Ram Sudhist Ray …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Another …… Opposite Party 17/Dated: 30/09/2016 It appears that on 06.05.2016, when the matter was called out, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner, thereafter the matter was listed for, 21.06.2016, 22.08.2016 and on that dates also nobody appeared on behalf of petitioner. Today also when the case is called out nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Put up this matter after sixteen weeks. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satyarthi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2978 of 2016 Rajeshwar Prasad Sahi …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH For the Petitioner :Mr. Md. Manzoor Ahmed, Advocate For the State : A.P.P 07/Dated: 30/09/2016 It appears that order dated 17.09.2016 has not been complied by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to comply order dated 17.09.2016. Requisites etc must be filed within one week after Durga Puja Vacation. Put up this case on 14.12.2016. Till then interim order granted earlier shall continue. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satyarthi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 884 of 2016 Diwakar Kumar Dubey …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH For the Petitioner :Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate For the State : 06/Dated: 30/09/2016 It appears that on 23.09.2016, the entire case record and case diary was handed over to the learned A.P.P Mr. Ashok Kumar, but today when the case is called out he is not present. Put up this case after Durga Puja Vacation. Till then interim relief granted earlier shall continue. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satyarthi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3114 of 2016 Suresh Sharma …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance …… Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH For the Petitioner :Mr. Radha Krishan Gupta, Advocate For the Vigilance : Mr. T. N. Verma, Spl. P.P 04/Dated: 30/09/2016 Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Vigilance Case No. 25 of 2016 arising out of Ranchi Vigilance P.S. Case No. 23 of 2016, registered under section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Learned counsel for the Vigilance Department has filed counter­affidavit and has produced case diary. From its perusal it appears that Rs. 5 lacs money belongs to one Manik Chand Maheshwari, who is the crusher owner and such amount was for handing over to his Bhagina, who is the marble dealer at Deoghar and another Rs. 3 lacs belong to one Om Prakash Sharma. Learned Special P.P for the Vigilance Department has submitted that the statement of petitioner and one Manik Chand Maheshwari and Om Prakash Sharma has not been recorded by I.O. The Investigating Officer is directed to record the statement of petitioner along with one Manik Chand Maheshwari and Om Prakash Sharma after giving 48 hours notice fixing the date, time and place to them so that they may appear before him for giving their statement and submit its report mentioning in the case diary. Learned Special P.P for the Vigilance Department is directed to obtain up- to-date case diary. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned Special P.P for its transmission to the Investigating Officer of this case. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satyarthi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.2804 of 2016 Rajesh Ranjan …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I …… Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH For the Petitioner :Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the C.B.I : Mr. K.P. Deo, Advocate 07/Dated: 30/09/2016 At the request of the learned standing counsel for the C.B.I put up this case on 26.10.2016. Till then interim relief granted earlier shall continue. Learned standing counsel for the C.B.I is directed to take instruction in the matter. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satyarthi/-