In this bail application, the court granted bail to the petitioners after a compromise was filed between the parties between them, though the application states that earlier anticipatory bail was rejected.
The petitioners were directed to surrender and release them on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A.No.1454 of 2016
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. .... Opposite parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
For the Petitioners : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite party : Mr. Lalit Yadav, & APP
---------
08/Dated: 05.08.2016
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections341,323, 354, 379 of Indian Penal Act and 3 /4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that earlier the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners were rejected by order dated 10.3.2014 in A.B.A. No.5132 of 2013, on the ground that anticipatory bail was not maintainable under Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is submitted by the counsel that after investigation the police submitted final form with finding that the case was not true. Thereafter the informant filed the protest petition and on the basis of protest cum complaint cognizance was taken under Sections 341, 323, 343, 354, 379 of the IPC and 3 /4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999. It is submitted that the petitioner no.1 is an aged lady and petitioner no.2 is the son of the petitioner no.1 and they have been falsely implicated on account of village politics. That earlier there was a proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. between the parties wherein the witnesses did not support the case of the informant/ first party in the proceedings of 107 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the feeling of good will has been restored between the parties and both the informant and the petitioners have filed a joint compromise which is evident from I.A.No.4646/16.
Learned counsel for the informant has conceded that both the parties have agreed to settle the matter and they have also filed a joint compromise petition in the court below and the informant has filed an affidavit to that effect in I.A. No.4646 of 2016. Heard. Admittedly the police submitted final form and thereafter cognizance was taken on the basis of protest petition. Now the informant has agreed for amicable settlement, thus in the attending facts and circumstances the petitioners are directed to surrender in the court below and in the event of their arrest or surrender, the court below shall release them on bail on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Deoghar, in connection with P.C.R case No.1009 of 2014, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Consequently, I.A.No.4646/16 is also hereby disposed of.
(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.)
Fahim/
Manju Chand and Ors.
The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Amitav K. Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
