IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P.No.323 of 2011
1. Siddharth Jha @ Raman Jha.
2. Manish Kumar Jha. ... ... ... ...Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Mrinal. ... ... ... ... ...Opp. Parties
-------------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUTICE D.K.SINHA
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.S.P.Sinha, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For the State: A.P.P.
For the State: Mr. M.B.Lal, Advocate.
-------------
C.A.V. on 20.06.2011 : Pronounced on 05.07.2011
-------------
I.A.No.1064 of 2011
D.K.Sinha,J. The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of
the petitioners Siddharth Jha @ Raman Jha and Manish Kumar Jha with the
prayer for their release on bail, who have been remanded by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bokaro in Chas (Sadar) S.C./S.T. No.4 P.S. Case No.02 of 2011
for the alleged offence under Sections 341/323/385/448/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3(i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The petitioners in the main petition have invoked the inherent
power of this Court for quashment of the F.I.R. and for the stay of any coercive
step to be taken against them. The petition was heard at the admission stage
and by the order dated 25.04.2011 this Court observed,
“In the circumstances, appreciating the prima
facie case on perusal of the documents, no coercive
step shall be taken against the petitioners in Chas
(Sadar) S.C./S.T. No.4 P.S. Case No.02 of 2011 till the
next date. It is expected that the petitioners would obtain
their bail before the next date.”
3. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. R.S.P. Sinha submitted that pursuant to
such direction, the petitioners voluntarily surrendered in the Court of the
C.J.M., Bokaro on 08.06.2011 by filing surrender-cum-Bail Petition. The C.J.M.
after hearing the petition and upon perusal of the order of this Court rejected
the prayer for bail and remanded both the petitioners to the judicial custody.
4. Learned Sr. Counsel further submitted that this Court by the order
dated 25.04.2011 clearly observed that no coercive step would be taken
against the petitioners till the next date. The petitioners in their bona fide belief
surrendered before the Court of C.J.M. and requested for bail which was
refused and in that manner the protection which was given to the petitioners by
observing that no coercive step shall be taken against them, was deliberately
disobeyed and the Interlocutory Application for appropriate direction in exercise
2
of the inherent jurisdiction for the release of the petitioners on bail. The
petitioners were under legitimate expectation that they would be at least
released on provisional bail till the pendency of the present Cr.M.P.No.323 of
2011 but of no avail and hence they have sought for intervention of this Court
for appropriate relief.
5. I find that the informant-Opposite Party No.2 has filed counter-
affidavit in the main petition but no reply has been filed with regard to the
Interlocutory Application filed on behalf of the petitioners.
6. Heard Mr. M.B.Lal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant-Opposite Party No.2 and Mr. Md. Hatim, learned A.P.P. on behalf of
the State.
7. It is true that after hearing the learned Sr. Counsel for the
petitioners and the learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State-Opposite Party at
length and having been satisfied prima facie, this Court directed by the order
dated 25.04.2011 in Cr.M.P.No.323 of 2011 that no coercive step shall be
taken against the petitioners in Chas (Sadar) S.C./S.T. No.4 P.S. Case No.02
of 2011 till the next date. This Court further observed that the petitioners were
expected to obtain their bail before the next date. I find that the learned Sr.
Counsel misconceived the observation made by this Court and there was no
direction to the petitioners that in the event of their surrender they would be
released on bail, rather they would not be arrested till next date. When the
petitioners surrendered in a cognizable non-bailable offence by submitting
bodily before the C.J.M. and asked for bail by filing petition, it was decided on
its own merit and both the petitioners were taken to judicial custody after
rejecting their bail petition and I do not find any illegality in such order. The
learned C.J.M., Bokaro was within his competence in taking recourse of law
when the petitioners submitted before the majesty of law. In the result this I.A.
is dismissed. However, this order would not prejudice the merit of the bail
petition of the petitioners under Section 437/439 Cr.P.C.
Cr.M.P.No.323 of 2011
The Opposite Party No.2 has already filed counter-affidavit in this
petition.
Put up this petition on 4th August, 2011 for its disposal at the
admission stage.
P.K.S./A.F.R. [D.K.Sinha,J.]