IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 200 of 2011
With
B.A. No. 538 of 2011
...
1. Narayan Gope @ Narain Gope
2. Manath Gope @ Manoj Gope ... Petitioner (in B.A. No. 200/2011)
1. Katika Oraon @ Kartik Oraon
2. Chotka Sao @ Chotka Sahu ... Petitioner (in B.A. No. 538/2011)
V e r s u s
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party.
...
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR.
...
For the Petitioners :Mr. A. K. Chaturvedi, Advocate(in B.A. No. 200/2011)
Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate ( in B. A. No. 538/2011)
For the State : A.P.P.s. (in both Cases).
...
03/19.04.2011
The aforesaid bail applications are heard together and are being
disposed of by this common order, as both the applications arose from the
same F.I.R.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for
the State.
This is an application for grant of regular bail to the petitioners for
the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and the case of the prosecution
is supported by eyewitnesses in para nos. 8, 9 and 10 of the case diary.
Considering the same, I am not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioners. Hence, their prayer for bail is hereby rejected.
(Pradeep Kumar, J.)
Kamlesh/
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 208 of 2011
Amrit Saw ……Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jashodhara Tripathy, Adv.
For the State : A.P.P.
03/19.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the State. Behalf
This is an application for grant of regular bail to the petitioner for
the offence under Sections 304(B)/147/148/149/323/337/427 of the
Indian Penal Code.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that although
there is allegation of torture against fatherinlaw and motherinlaw and
also that they assaulted the deceased and thrown in the well. But, the
inquest report shows that there is only one injury on the back of the
deceased, which was due to fall of the deceased in the well. There is no
direct evidence against fatherinlaw that he assaulted her before
throwing her in the well. The husband is already in the custody.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.
From perusal of the case diary, it appears that only injury is on the
back of the deceased, which was due to fall in the well. Petitioner is in
custody since 30.07.2010. Considering the same, petitioner, above named,
is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/
(Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of learned Additional District Judge, FTCVII, Hazaribagh
in connection with Sadar (Mufassil) P. S. Case No. 531 of 2010
corresponding to G. R. Case No. 2380 of 2010(S. T. Case No 483 of 2010),
subject to the condition that bailers would be the local residents having
property within the jurisdiction of the court.
(Pradeep Kumar, J.)
Kamlesh/
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 210 of 2011
Raju Singh ……Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Chaturvedi, Adv.
For the State : A.P.P.
03/19.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the State. Behalf
This is an application for grant of regular bail to the petitioner for
the offence under Sections 341/452/385/386 of the Indian Penal Code,
Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the CLA Act.
As per the F. I.R. the allegation is that the main accused Shanti Devi
who entered in the house of the informant with other accused persons
and said that they are the members of J.P.C. extremists group and
demanded Rs. Ten Thousand as levy from the informant. Due to fear,
informant gave only Rs. Two Thousand. Subsequently after giving threat
they left out from there. It is alleged that subsequently villagers gathered
and they chased the extremists and caught hold three extremists including
this petitioner, but nothing has been recovered from the possession of this
petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 05.09.2010.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and
submits that petitioner has got criminal antecedent.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no direct
allegation against this petitioner in this case and petitioner is in custody
since 05.09.2010, petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/(Rupees Twenty Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in connection with Barwadih P. S. Case
No. 62 of 2010 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 480 of 2010 , subject to
the condition that bailers would be the local residents having property
within the jurisdiction of the court concerned. Petitioner will appear once
every month in Court on date fixed, otherwise his bail bound would be
liable to be cancelled.
(Pradeep Kumar, J.)
Kamlesh/
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 214 of 2011
Md. Shaukat Ansari ……Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Adv.
For the State : A.P.P.
03/19.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the State.
This is an application for grant of regular bail to the petitioner for
the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.
Petitioner was identified by the informant as well as by the inmates
of the house. Petitioner has also got criminal antecedent.
Considering the same, I am not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioners. Hence, their prayer for bail is hereby rejected.
(Pradeep Kumar, J.)
Kamlesh/