Jhubar Mahto Vs. the State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....in this case as because he was not ready to sell the lands to the company owners. it is also submitted that in the investigation, the said fact has also come. counsel for the state has filed the counter affidavit and submitted that the present petitioner is the owner of certain portion of the land, which the company owners wanted to purchase and as because he has refused to sell the land, the informant, who is security guard of the company, has lodged the present case against him only to harass and put pressure on him for selling his share to the company owner. the counsel for the state has also submitted that this fact has come in the paragraph no.11 and 12 of the case diary. considering the aforesaid submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the trial court /court below within a period of one month from the date of this order. if the petitioner surrenders before the court below within the said period, the trial court is directed to release the petitioner namely jhubar mahto on bail, on furnishing bail bond of rs.10,000/-(rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the.....

Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3788 of 2012 ---- Jhubar Mahto .... ... ... .... Petitioner ---Versus--- The State of Jharkhand .........Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE JAYA ROY ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Sajid Yunus, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ---- 3 / 19.12.2012 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner is accused in this case registered under Section 147, 149, 323, 379, 385 of the I.P.C., pending in the court of J.M., Hazaribagh. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case as because he was not ready to sell the lands to the company owners. It is also submitted that in the investigation, the said fact has also come. Counsel for the State has filed the counter affidavit and submitted that the present petitioner is the owner of certain portion of the land, which the company owners wanted to purchase and as because he has refused to sell the land, the informant, who is security guard of the company, has lodged the present case against him only to harass and put pressure on him for selling his share to the company owner. The counsel for the State has also submitted that this fact has come in the paragraph no.11 and 12 of the case diary. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the trial court /court below within a period of one month from the date of this order. If the petitioner surrenders before the court below within the said period, the trial court is directed to release the petitioner namely Jhubar Mahto 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., Hazaribagh, in connection with Rajrappa P.S.Case No.48 of 2012, corresponding to G.R.No.3128 of 2012, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors will be local resident having immovable property within the jurisdiction of the district concerned and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. ( Jaya Roy, J.

) SI/