IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
-----
A.B.A.NO. no.2762/2011
----
1. Raj Kumar @ Rajkumar Kumhar
2. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Kumhar ....... Petitioners.
--Versus--
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Gopal Singh ..... Opp.Parties
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. K.P.Deo, Advocate.
For the State : A.P.P.
------
20/21.10.2011
Heard counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the
State and counsel for the informant.
Counsle for the petitioners has submitted that the
allegation against the petitioners in the complaint petition is that the
petitioners came to the complainant and presurrised him for giving
service in UCIL and for that they have forcibly entered ino the house of
the complainant and assulted him and his family members and also
looted jewellery and forcibly taken the signature of the complainant’s
son in a blank cheque. It is also submitted that the petitioners have
also filed a case against the complainant being Jugsalai(Baghbera)
P.S.Case no.221/2009 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument
Act and also under various Sections of the Penal Code. It is also
submitted that the complainant has taken some money from the
petitioners’ family on the assurance that they will provide service of
petitioner no.2, namely, Deepak Kumar in UCIL. It is also submitted
that the complainant has returned Rs.50,000/- to the petitioenrs as
per the order of another Bench of this Court passed in
B.A.NO.1046/2010 vide order dated 11.05.2010 in connection with the
Jugsalai(Baghbera) P.S.Case no.221 of 2009.
Counsel for the complainant has submitted
that as a large number of family members has already been given
service in UCIL instead of the acquisition of their land, the petitioners
presurrised the complainant for giving them service in UCIL. Even the
petitioners introduced their names in the said Company but on giving
information by the complainant, their names were rejected and for
this reason the petitioners came to the complainant and assaulted
him and his family members, as alleged in the complainant petition.
Considering the submission of botht the parties, I find that
both the parties have filed cases against each other, practically at the
same time and even according to the direction given by another
Bench of this Court the complainant’s son has returned the amount
to the petitioenr no.1, namely, Raj Kumar.
Considering all these circumstances, I direct the
petitioners, named above, to surrender before the trial court within a
period of six weeks from the date of this order (21.10.2011) and if
they so surrender, the trial court(Judicial Magistraste, Ist Class,
Jamshedpur) to release them on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each to its
satisfaction in connection with C/I case no.3570/2009 subject to the
conditions that one of the bailors will be their close relative and
another will be of local resident having immovable property within
thejurisdiction of the trial court and subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
(Jaya Roy, J.)
Biswas.