Allowed

Pankaj Kumar Raut Alias Pankaj Raut v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Apr 2019A.B.A./6865/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to five petitioners in a complaint case involving sections 323, 354, 379, 452, 504, and 34 of the IPC. The court noted the existence of a land dispute between agnates and the lack of specific allegations against them, directing surrender within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to be released on anticipatory bail upon surrender within four weeks, subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties.

Pankaj Kumar Raut Alias Pankaj Raut Vs the State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 6865 of 2018

¶3

…..

¶4

Pankaj Kumar Raut @ Pankaj Raut, son of Karu Raut.

¶5

Karu Raut, son of late Lalji Raut.

¶6

Nutan Devi, wife of Pankaj Raut.

¶7

Geeta Devi, wife of Karu Raut.

¶8

Vikash Kumar Raut @ Vikash Raut, son of Karu Raut. All resident of village- Tilakpur, P.O. + P.S.- Sonaraithari, District- Deoghar.

¶9

…… Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Jharkhand

¶12

Sindhu Debya, widow of late Mahadeo Raut, resident of village- Tilakpur, P.O. + P.S.- Sonaraithari, District- Deoghar.

¶13

…… Opposite Parties

¶14

-----

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶16

----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.P.P For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Advocate

¶17

…….

¶18

06/11.04.2019 Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1293 of 2017 dated 20.12.2017 for the offence registered under sections 323/ 354/ 379/ 452/ 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner no. 4 Geeta Devi has filed a case earlier to the present case which has been registered as Complaint Case No. 939/2017 dated 18.09.2017, thereafter the present case has been filed. The parties are agnates and there is land dispute between the parties. There is no specific allegation against the petitioners, as such, petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 has opposed the prayer for bail but has not disputed that there is case and counter-case between the parties and petitioner no. 4 has filed a case against the relative of present complainant and they are agnates and there is land dispute between the parties.

¶21

Considering that the parties are agnates and there is land dispute between the parties, petitioners named above are directed to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their surrender/arrest within four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar in connection with Complaint Case No. 1293 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶22

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶23

Pallavi/

Pankaj Kumar Raut Alias Pankaj Raut v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar Raut Alias Pankaj Raut 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

Sujit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kuldeep Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Minhaz Qureshi Alias Minhaz Quraishi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Fenku Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bharat Prasad Alias Bharat Khushwaha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Claret Ekka Alias Kalaret Ekka Vs the State of Jharkhand