Allowed

Fenku Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Apr 2019A.B.A./7421/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to five petitioners in a P.C.R. case alleging forgery under IPC 467/468/420. Court held matter sub judice regarding land mutation and directed surrender within four weeks with bail bonds. Reliance on Section 438 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on anticipatory bail with Rs.10,000 bonds via two sureties to Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar, to surrender within four weeks.

Fenku Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 7421 of 2018

¶3

Fenku Mahto, Son of Late Hari Mahto.

¶4

Shiv Shankar Mahto @ Shiv Shankar Pd. Verma, son of Late Hari Mahto.

¶5

Tulsi Mahto @ Tulsi Verma, son of Late Hari Mahto.

¶6

Ganesh Mahto @ Ganesh Verma, son of Late Hari Mahto.

¶7

Bhairo Mahto @ Bhairo Verma, son of Late Nunulal Mahto.

¶8

All are residents of village- Khashpaka, P.O. and P.S.- Jasidih, Sub-Division and District – Deoghar. ……… Petitioners.

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Jharkhand

¶11

Sitaram Mahto, S/o Late Ganeri Mhato, village + P.O.- Simra, P.S.- Jasidih , District- Deoghar. …………. Opposite Parties.

¶12

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶13

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate.

¶14

For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate

¶15

05/ Date: 11.04.2019 Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶16

Petitioners have prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with P.C.R. case No. 239 of 2016, for the offence registered under sections 467,468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that quasi judicial processing has been decided in favour of petitioner vide order dated 17.07.2015 passed by the court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar in R.M.A. case No.4/11-12 as mentioned in paragraph-3 of complaint petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that subsequent to the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, the complainant has preferred Revision application before the court of commissioner, Santhal Pargana at Sub-Division, Dumka, which is pending before the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that thereafter the present FIR has been instituted on the basis of complaint case filed on 16.03.2016 just to prejudice the mind of Commissioner so as to set aside the order dated 17.07.2015 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and as such, these petitioners may be enlarged on anticipatory bail as they have no criminal antecedent.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the opposite

¶19

-2-

¶20

party no.2 have vehemently argued the case and produced a photocopy of Extract copy of Rent Role of Mr. Wood Settlement of Mouza-Khaspoka, Taluk- Deoghar, which stands in the name of Bihari Mahto, ancestors of the complainant and by making some forgery in the said document, the petitioners have got the land mutated in their name and subsequently on the basis of such document the Additional Deputy Commissioner has passed the order in their favour and as such, they does not deserve anticipatory bail.

¶21

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, since the matter is subJudice before a competent court of law and the present case has been filed subsequent to the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar as such. Petitioners named above are directed to be enlarged 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 P.C.R. case No. 239 of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶22

Jay/

Fenku Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fenku 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

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

Bharat Prasad Alias Bharat Khushwaha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Claret Ekka Alias Kalaret Ekka Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Ahzam Vs the State of Jharkhand