Allowed

Ritika Mukhi v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC14 Dec 2018Cr.M.P./53/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Misc. Petition sought cancellation of bail granted to Pawan Lohar due to alleged incorrect statements made during the bail order proceedings and threats posed by the accused to the petitioner following his release.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted vide order dated 19.11.2016 is cancelled. Opposite party No. 2 is directed to surrender to the court-below within two weeks.

Ritika Mukhi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 53 of 2017

¶2

Ritika Mukhi, wife of late Budheshwar Mukhi @ Shan Babu, resident of village Dhirajganj, PO & PS Adityapur, District Saraikella-Kharsawan (Jharkhand). ... Petitioner

¶3

-Versus-

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

Pawan Lohar, son of Hiralal Lohar, resident of village Dhirajganj, PO & PS Adityapur, District Saraikella-Kharsawan (Jharkhand).

¶6

... Opposite Parties

¶7

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

¶8

... For the Petitioner :- Mr. Arjun N. Deo, Advocate. For the State :- A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 :- M/s. Indrajit Sinha &

¶9

Harshvardhan, Advocates.

¶10

14/14.12.2018:

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for opposite party No.2.

¶12

This Cr.M.P. has been filed for cancellation of bail granted vide order dated 19.11.2016 in B.A. No. 9094 of 2016 by this Court, whereby and whereunder, this Court has been pleased to direct opposite party No.2, namely, Pawan Lohar to be released on bail in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 137 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 636 of 2016, which is pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, SariakellaKharsawan.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for cancellation of bail of opposite party No.2 and has pointed out in para-15 of this petition that learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 had made an incorrect statement before this Court that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and accordingly, this Court was led to grant bail to opposite party No.2.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that after the release from jail, opposite party No.2 along with other accused persons are giving serious threats to the petitioner for lodging Adityapur P.S. Case No. 137 of 2016.

¶15

Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has argued that this Court after considering every aspect of the matter and after perusing the order passed in A.B.A. No. 2698 of 2016, in which, other co-accused have been

¶16

granted bail, this Court was led to grant bail to opposite party No.2. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has further submitted that opposite party No.2 has never given any threat to the petitioner and moreover, petitioner has not made any complaint to the appropriate authority regarding the threat given by opposite party No.2.

¶17

Apart from this, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State on 10.12.2018, in which, they have gone into the matters and indicated the reservation for bail being granted and have not objected or denied the prayer of the petitioner made in this Cr.M.P.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for the both the sides, including learned counsel for the State, having gone through the pleadings made in this Cr.M.P. and taking note of the fact that incorrect statement was originally made that he was not named in the FIR primarily, and also having gone through the other records of the case and counter affidavit of State, bail granted to opposite party No.2, namely, Pawan Lohar in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 137 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 636 of 2016, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sariakella-Kharsawan, vide order dated 19.11.2016, is cancelled.

¶19

Opposite party No.2, namely, Pawan Lohar is directed to surrender before the learned court-below within two weeks from today, failing which learned court-below will take steps for procuring his arrest.

¶20

Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. stands disposed of.

¶21

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

¶22

S.B.

Ritika Mukhi v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritika Mukhi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paresh Pandit Vs State of Jharkhand

Agnisen Mahto And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Geeta Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Tasauwar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Firoz Khan Vs State of Jharkhand

Nanhak Sao Vs State of Jharkhand