Partly allowed

Rahul Kumar Alias Rahul Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Dec 2015A.B.A./3525/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed anticipatory bail for nine petitioners charged with violence during a procession, noting general allegations and lack of injury report. However, the court rejected bail for petitioner No. 10, who received specific assault charges, while directing the rest to surrender and execute bail bonds.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected for petitioner No. 10; bail allowed for petitioners No. 1 to 9; order to surrender within three weeks and furnish bond.

Rahul Kumar Alias Rahul Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs the… — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A. B. A. No. 3525 of 2015

¶3

¶4

Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Kumar Yadav

¶5

Bicky Kumar @ Bikkey Kumar @ Bicky Kumar Yadav, both sons of Late Nirmal Yadav, resident of Village Gunja, P.O. and P.S. Ichak, District Hazaribag

¶6

Munna Mehta son of resident of village Kurha, P.O. and P.S. Ichak, District Hazaribag

¶7

Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Mehta @ Karu son of Satish Mehta, resident of village Kurha, P.O. and P.S. Ichak, District Hazaribag

¶8

Sakaldeep Prasad Mehta @ Sakaldeep Mehta son of Munshi Mehta, resident of village Kurha Tand, P.O. and P.S. Ichak, District Hazaribag

¶9

Ravindra Prasad Mehta @ Ravindra Mehta son of Baleshwar Mehta @ Balsa Mehta, resident village Kurha Tand, P.O. and P.S. Ichak, District Hazaribag

¶10

Vinay Kumar Mehta @ Vinay Mehta @ Binay Mehta @ Dila son of Sita Mahto, resident of village Gunja, P.O. and P.S. Ichak, District Hazaribag

¶11

Kameshwar Prasad Mehta @ Kameshwar Mehta son of late Bansi Mehta, resident of village Kurha Tand, P.O. and P.S. Ichak, District Hazaribag

¶12

Awadhesh Kumar @ Awadhesh Mehta son of Munshi Mahto, resident of village Kurha, P.O. and P.S. Ichak, District Hazaribag

¶13

10.Subhash Kumar @ Subhash Kumar Mehta, son of Munshi Mahto, resident of village Kurha, P.O. and P.S. Ichak, District Hazaribag … … Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

¶16

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioners : Mr. R.S. Pandey, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Deepak Kumar, A.P.P.

¶17

02/02.12.2015 Heard Mr. R.S. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶18

Petitioners have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No. 69 of 2013 corresponding to G. R. No. 1369 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The allegation made in the First Information Report is that the petitioners have entered into an exhibition and the petitioner No. 10 has given sword blow on the head of the informant.

¶20

-2-

¶21

It has been alleged that the other accused persons had also assaulted the informant and left him for dead.

¶22

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Ramnavmi procession was going on in which the informant had forcibly entered leading to some altercation. It has been submitted that the allegations made in the First Information Report have been falsified by the fact that there is no injury report of the informant.

¶23

Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail and has referred to Paragraphs – 10 and 11 of the case diary in which it has been stated that the petitioner No. 10 had assaulted the informant.

¶24

It appears from the First Information Report as well as from the statement of the witnesses examined in course of investigation that there is specific allegation against the petitioner No. 10 of committing the assault upon the informant.

¶25

From the impugned order, it appears that no requisition was issued by the police to obtain the injury report and in such circumstance the injury report is absent from the record. It appears that the informant was treated like other patients and he was discharged after treatment. Laxity of the police in submitting a requisition and obtaining the injury report of the informant cannot absolve the petitioner No. 10 with respect to the specific nature of allegations levelled against him.

¶26

In such view of the matter, the anticipatory bail application, so far as the petitioner No. 10 is concerned, is, hereby, rejected.

¶27

However, as regards the rest of the petitioners are concerned, it appears that general allegations have been levelled against them by the informant as well as by the witnesses examined in course of investigation.

¶28

It is to be noted that incident had taken place at the time of Ramnavmi Procession in such circumstances the false implication against these petitioners cannot be ruled out. Moreover, as would appears the informant was treated by the doctor like any other patient and was discharged on the same day.

¶29

-3-

¶30

Considering the generality of the allegations levelled against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 9, I am inclined to allow this anticipatory application. Accordingly, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 9, named above, are directed to surrender in the court below within three weeks from today and on such surrender, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Hazaribag, in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No. 69 of 2013 corresponding to G. R. No. 1369 of 2013, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶31

(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶32

Umesh/-

Rahul Kumar Alias Rahul Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar Alias Rahul Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Madhulika Devi and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Dilip Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Sahab Akhter Alias MD Shahab Akhtar Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Sudha Kumari and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nanki Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand