Allowed

Ravindra Kumar Barnwal And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Apr 2016A.B.A./85/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to multiple petitioners challenging their arrest related to offences under Chapter VIII of the IPC. The court found that the dispute arose from peaceful protests regarding land compensation for overhead transmission towers by Damodar Valley Corporation, noting no evidence of assault.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail with directive to surrender within three weeks for regular bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties.

Ravindra Kumar Barnwal And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 85 of 2016

¶3

Ravindra Kumar Barnwal, S/o Sri Dwarika Modi, Resident of Godhokar, P.O. Hirodih, P.S. Jainagar, District-Koderma, StateJharkhand.

¶4

Pankaj Kumar, Son of Sri Bhubneshwar Modi, Resident of Tilaya, Jhanda Chowk, P.O. Jhumri Tilaiya, P.S. Tilaiya, DistrictKoderma, State-Jharkhand.

¶5

Vijay Kumar Modi, S/o late Banshi Modi, Resident of Rajdhanwar, P.O. & P.S. Rajdhanwar, District-Giridih, StateJharkhand.

¶6

Neelam Barnwal, W/o Ravindra Kumar Barnwal, Resident of Godhokar, P.O. Hirodih, P.S. Jainagar, District-Koderma, StateJharkhand.

¶7

Manju Devi @ Modi, W/o Sukhdeo Modi, Resident of Godhokar, P.O. Hirodih, P.S. Jainagar, District-Koderma, State-Jharkhand.

¶8

Rita Barnwal, W/o Manoj Barnwal, Resident of Godhokar, P.O. Hirodih, P.S. Jainagar, District-Koderma, State, Jharkhand.

¶9

Brahmdeo Modi, S/o Arjun Modi, Resident of Chugalsar, P.O. & P.S. Hirodih, District-Giridih, State-Jharkhand.

¶10

Deewakar Modi, S/o Bhubneshwar Modi, Resident of Bandasingha, P.O. Barkhatta, P.S. Gaurhar, District-Hazaribagh, State-Jharkhand.

¶11

Sudhir Barnwal, S/o Tulshi Barnwal, Resident of Rajdhanwar, P.O. & P.S. Rajdhanwar, District-Giridih, State-Jharkhand.

¶12

Pramod Modi, S/o Sri Bhubneshwar Modi, Resident of Bandasingha, P.O. Barkatha, P.S. Gaurhar, District-Hazaribagh, State-Jharkhand.

¶13

Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Modi @ Manoj Kumar Barnwal, S/ o Sri Kali Modi, Resident of Ghorthamba, P.O. & P.S. Rajdhanwar, District-Giridih, State-Jharkhand.

¶14

Dhiraj Kumar @ Dhiraj Kumar Barnwal, S/o Sri Mahesh Prasad Barnwal, Resident of Domchanch, P.O. Domchanch, P.S. Bheluatand, District-Koderma, State-Jharkhand.

¶15

Ishwari Rana, S/o late Kishun Rana, Resident of Karma, P.O. Karma, P.S. Teliya, District-Koderma, State-Jharkhand.

¶16

….. Petitioners

¶17

Versus

¶18

The State of Jharkhand. … Opposite Party

¶19

Coram: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶20

-------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate For the State : APP -------02/08-04-2016 Heard the parties.

¶21

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Teliya P.S. Case No. 39 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 163

¶22

-2-

¶23

of 2015, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 337, 504, 353 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that various plots of land were purchased by the petitioners and in fact Damodar Valley Corporation was installing overhead wires for over head transmission on the lands belonging to the petitioners.

¶25

It has been submitted that under the Telegraph Act read with Electricity Act, the Deputy Commissioner is the competent authority to decide on the quantum of compensation. It has further been submitted that an amount of Rs.57,200/- was finally quantified as the compensation, which was a very meagre amount, for which the petitioners had preferred a writ application, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner no. 1 preferred an appeal, which is still pending. Learned counsel submits that the entire dispute is with respect to installation of towers for overhead transmission and the petitioners being the rightful owner of the land in question had made peaceful protest and infact with respect to the same, the petitioners had also filed a compliant case on 12.02.2015 a day prior to the FIR instituted by the informant. It has also been submitted that there is no injury report on record to suggest that there was assault committed by the petitioners and other accused persons.

¶26

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that the acts of the petitioners invite criminal prosecution since the government officials were prevented from discharging their official duties. It has been submitted that stones were pelted at the police party as well as the government officials and in such circumstances, the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶27

It appears that the petitioners have purchased the lands, which initially belonged to Padma Maharaj. The incident occurred between government officials and petitioners on account of monitoring installation of towers for overhead transmission of electric line and the allegation gets diluted in view of the petitioners being rightful owners of the plot, in which such construction work was being carried out. Moreover, the entire dispute as has been stated above revolves around the amount of compensation, which the DVC has to decide and which according to the petitioners are being decided in

¶28

-3-

¶29

the lower side which had made them join in a peaceful protest. In such circumstances, therefore, I am inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, the petitioners, named above, are directed to surrender in the court below within a period of three weeks from today and pray for regular bail, and in that event, they will be enlarged on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- ( Ten thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M, Koderma, in connection with Teliya P.S. Case No. 39 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 163 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶30

( Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶31

Rakesh/

Ravindra Kumar Barnwal And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Kumar Barnwal 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

Rajesh Kumar Kasera and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Fulchand Saw And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Rama Kant Pandey Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Gautam Roy Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Devendra Marandi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Shambhu Shahi Alias Shambhu Kumar And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand