Allowed

Somai Mardi And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 May 2017B.A./3299/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail petition involved multiple petitioners accused under IPC, Forest Act, and Forest Conservation Act for obstructing plantation. The bench considered claims of false implication and wrongful land occupation protest. Regular bail was granted to all petitioners subject to bonds and sureties. The order dismissed the regular bail petition against them, allowing their release.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to be released on bail by furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties of like amount each.

Somai Mardi And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 3299 of 2017

¶3

Somai Mardi, son of Late Karan Mardi

¶4

Shyam Hembrem Sham @ Shyam Hembram, son of Late Lakhan Hembrem

¶5

Mangal Murmu, son of Late Baijnath Murmu

¶6

Kisun Murmu, son of Sashadhar Murmu

¶7

Sankha Murmu @ Sankhe Murmu @ Shanku Murmu, son of Kisun Murmu 6. Meghrai Murmu, son of Sokhen Murmu

¶8

Samal Baskey, son of Late Sarkar Baskey

¶9

Joseph Baskey, son of Late Sarkar Baskey 9. Salkhan Baskey, son of Jethu Baskey 10. Smt. Singo Baskey, wife of Sri Samal Baskey 11. Babulal Murmu, son of Mangal Murmu 12. Shivnath Hembrem @ Shiv Nath Hembram @ Shibnath Hembram, son of Sri Shyam Hembrem 13. Burju Hembrem @ Burju Hembram @ Barju Hembrem, son of Late Suklal Hembrem 14. Mangal Baskey, son of Late Sarkar Baskey 15. Suklal Hembrem @ Suklal Hembram, son of Sri Shyam Hembrem All are residents of Village-Hiraganj, P.O. & P.S.-Ghatshila, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand ... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. R.C.P. Sah, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. -----

¶10

03/04.05.2017 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

The petitioners are accused in a case registered under Sections 147/148/149/353 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 26/33/63/66/66-A of the Indian forest Act and Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. It is alleged that the accused persons including the petitioners obstructed the government officers in discharging their official duties while they were making plantation in the forest land. It is

¶13

submitted that the petitioners and other co-accused persons were protesting against the said plantation being done by the Forest Department, as they claim to be the rightful owners of the said land. No government officer has been injured in the said occurrence. Co-accused persons namely, Chhatish Kr. Tiriya, Banamali Mahto, Pawan Kumar Mahto, Smt. Joba Murmu and Sokhen Murmu @ Soken Murmu have already been granted regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.04.2017 in B.A. No. 2713 of 2017. Another co-accused namely, Paluram Murmu has also been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 26.04.2017 in B.A. No. 2907 of 2017. The petitioners are in judicial custody since 06.03.2017 and, therefore, they may be given the privilege of regular bail.

¶14

The learned A.P.P. opposes the petitioners' prayers for

¶15

bail.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners above named are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila, in connection with Ghatshila P.S. Case No. 39 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 235 of 2014.

¶17

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶18

Manish

Somai Mardi And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somai Mardi 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

Sonaram Murmu Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Vigilance

Rajeev Jaiswal Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Mithilesh Kumar Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jasim Khan And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Anand Singh Alias Anand Singh Sardar Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Deepak Lohra Vs The State Of Jharkhand