Partly allowed

Dineshwar Yadav Alias Dineshwar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Sept 2020A.B.A./2465/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand denied anticipatory bail to one petitioner (P-2) due to criminal antecedents under Section 302 IPC. It allowed bail to seven other petitioners, directing them to surrender within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Bail denied to Petitioner No. 2. Surrender directed for remaining petitioners with a bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties within four weeks.

Dineshwar Yadav Alias Dineshwar Mahto Vs State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 2465 of 2020

¶2

¶3

1.Dineshwar Yadav @ Dineshwar Mahto 2.Girdhari Mahto @ Girdhari Yadav 3.Ishwar Mahto 4.Binod Mahto @ Binod Yadav 5.Baleshwar Yadav @ Balo Mahto 6.Naresh Yadav 7.Ranjet Yadav 8.Babloo Yadav … … Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶7

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Kumar No. 1, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Mritunjay Chaudhary, Advocate

¶9

¶10

3/01.09.2020 Heard the parties.

¶11

Defects as pointed out by the office are ignored.

¶12

Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Bengabad P.S. Case No. 508 of 2019.

¶13

The informant had purchased a land in which he has constructed a boundary wall. It has been alleged that on 22.09.2019, the accused persons variously armed had entered into the land of the informant, demolished the boundary wall and took away 7,500 bricks by loading them on tractors. When the informant had objected, the petitioner no. 1 had demanded extortion money of Rs. One lac.

¶14

There appears to be delay of 14 days in institution of the FIR. The allegations against all the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature, save and except petitioner no. 1.

¶15

Mr. Mritunjay Chaudhary, learned counsel for the informant has pointed out that so far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, he is having criminal antecedent having been convicted in a case under Section 302 of I.P.C.

¶16

Regard being had to the criminal antecedent of the petitioner no. 2, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the said petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

¶17

-2-

¶18

So far as petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 are concerned, the said petitioners above named are directed to surrender in the court below within four weeks and pray for bail, and in that event, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned J. M. 1^st class, Giridih in connection with Bengabad P.S. Case No. 508 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶19

This application stands disposed of.

¶20

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶21

R. Shekhar Cp 3

Dineshwar Yadav Alias Dineshwar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dineshwar Yadav Alias Dineshwar Mahto v. 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

Ajay Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tuntun Prasad Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Riyaz Mian Alias MD Reyaz Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kriahna Mohan Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gumani Rabidas Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand