Partly allowed

Kusum Toppo and Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC10 Sept 2014A.B.A./615/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed anticipatory bail for blind petitioner No.1 in a pending FIR for offences including cheating and assault, directing her release upon surrender, while rejecting the prayer for petitioners Nos.2 and 3.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner No.1 to be released on bail on surrender upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000; prayers for petitioners Nos.2 and 3 rejected.

Kusum Toppo and Ors. Vs The State Of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No.615 of 2014

¶3

Kusum Toppo

¶4

Ariak Kashyap @ Erick Kashyap @ Errick Kashyap

¶5

Dipak Yadav @ Deepak Yadav @ Shukla

¶6

..... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

Rabi Murmu

¶10

…. Opposite Parties

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA

¶12

For the Petitioners : Mr. Awanish Shekhar For the State : A. P.P. For the Complainant : Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra

¶13

2/10.9.2014 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution

¶14

as also learned counsel for the complainant.

¶15

The petitioners are apprehending their arrests in connection with P.C.R. Case No.314 of 2013, for the alleged offences under Sections 323, 420, 379 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

It is alleged that there was an agreement between the petitioner No.1 Kusum Toppo and the complainant for sale of the house of the petitioner, for which the money was also taken in advance, but the sale deed was not executed, even though the complainant was allowed to live in the house. There is allegation against the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 that when the complainant asked the accused Kusum Toppo to execute the sale deed, these petitioners objected to it and one day, while the complainant was away from the house, the house was locked and when he demanded the keys, he was assaulted by the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 causing injuries on the complainant.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel that the impugned order would show that the petitioner Kusum Toppo is a handicapped lady, who is completely blind. Learned counsel accordingly, prayed for anticipatory bail.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail submitting that there is direct allegation against the petitioners to have assaulted the complainant causing injuries on him. It has also been submitted that the petitioner No.1 Kusum Toppo had received the entire consideration money of the house but the sale deed was not executed. Learned counsel accordingly, opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶19

In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that there is no allegation against the petitioner Kusum Toppo of assaulting the complainant and the impugned order also shows that she is a blind lady. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of surrender/arrest, the petitioner No. 1 Kusum Toppo shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/(Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount of each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara, in connection with P.C.R. Case No.314 of 2013, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

So far as petitioners Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, I am not inclined to release them on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

¶21

(H. C. Mishra, J)

¶22

R.Kumar

Kusum Toppo and Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kusum Toppo and Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Keshav Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand

MD Manauwar Hussain Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Vijay Choudhary Alias Vijay Kumar Choudhary Alias Bijay Kumar Choudhary Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Vikash Singh Alias Vikash Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Deglal Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jaya Kumari and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand