Allowed

Chitranjan Mahto Alias Chitu Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Jun 2018Cr.A(SJ)/610/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail. It set aside the lower court's order and directed the appellants to surrender. Bail was granted contingent on depositing an interim victim compensation amount and furnishing a bail bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; anticipatory bail granted subject to surrender within four weeks, deposit of Rs. 2,000/- each as victim compensation, and furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two s

Chitranjan Mahto Alias Chitu Mahto Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 610 of 2018

¶3

Chitranjan Mahto @Chitu Mahto

¶4

Basant Mahto

¶5

Bhekhar @ Shekhar @ Shekhar

¶6

Rohit Mahto @ rohit Kumar

¶7

Rupesh Mahto @ Rupesh Kumar 6. Hari Mahto … Appellants Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand 2. Munsi Munda … Respondents

¶9

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Appellants : Mrs. J. Tripathy, Adv. For the State : Addl. PP

¶11

03 / 19.06.2018 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

¶12

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Ramgarh in ABP no. 463 of 2017 in connection with Ramgarh (SC/ST) P.S. Case No. 02 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 777 of 2017, registered under Sections 147/341/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1)(iv) (v) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby and whereunder the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants was rejected.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Court below failed to take note of the fact that there is no averment it the written report that the appellants are not the members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or that the occurrence took place in a place within public view nor there is any averment that the informant has been dispossessed from his land or premises or his land has been occupied by the appellants, hence no offence punishable under the penal provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out and rest of the offences involved are bailable in nature. It was further submitted that the appellants are ready and willing to pay Rs. 2,000/- each as ad interim victim compensation to the informantMunsi Munda without prejudice to their defence, hence, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 24.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Ramgarh in ABP no. 463 of 2017 in connection with Ramgarh (SC/ST) P.S. Case No. 02 of 2017

¶14

corresponding to G.R. No. 777 of 2017, be set aside and the appellants be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶15

Learned Addl. P.P. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶16

Considering the submissions of the learned counsels and facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the considered view that this a fit case where the appellants be given the privilege of anticipatory bail hence the impugned order dated 24.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Ramgarh in ABP no. 463 of 2017 in connection with Ramgarh (SC/ST) P.S. Case No. 02 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 777 of 2017, being not sustainable in law is set aside and the appellants named above, are directed to surrender before the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order. In case of the appellants being arrested or surrendering in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh within the stipulated time, they will be enlarged on bail on depositing a demand draft of Rs. 2,000/- each drawn in favour of respondent no. 2, Munsi Munda and 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 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh in connection with S.C/ST P.S. Case No. 02 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 777 of 2017 during pendency of the case..

¶17

In case the demand draft is deposited by the appellants, learned Court below is directed to issue notice to the informant respondent no. 2, Munsi Munda and on proper identification, handover the demand draft to him forthwith.

¶18

This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶19

Let this order be communicated thorough FAX @ Rs. 50/- per page to be borne by the appellants.

¶20

( ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)

¶21

Smita/-

Chitranjan Mahto Alias Chitu Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chitranjan Mahto Alias Chitu Mahto 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pritam Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Quarban Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bishnu Sah Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Pravesh Vishwakarma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranjeet Singh Alias Ranjeet K Singh Vs State of Jharkhand