Partly allowed

Madho Pandit Alias Mahadeo Pandit v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Oct 2020A.B.A./3630/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in murder and attempted murder of police officers case. Court granted bail to Petitioner No.1 with conditions, directions to surrender, and cooperation, noting he was cleared by inquiry. Bail to Petitioner No.2, directly accused of murder, was rejected as not a fit case warranting custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail to Petitioner No.1 with conditions to surrender and cooperate; rejection of anticipatory bail for Petitioner No.2.

Madho Pandit Alias Mahadeo Pandit Vs the State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3630 of 2020

¶2

Madho Pandit @ Mahadeo Pandit

¶3

Sunil Pandit @ Sunil Kumar Pandit

¶4

------

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

For the Petitioners : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P

¶7

Order No.03 Dated- 06.10.2020

¶8

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶9

Apprehending their arrest in connection with Saria P.S. Case No.105 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No.982 of 2019 instituted under Sections 147/148/149/341/323/307/504 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were the members of an unlawful assembly and being armed with deadly weapons they murdered Gopi Pandit and attempted to murder several others. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that there is no specific overt act attributed to the petitioners. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned A.P.P appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that there is specific and direct allegation against the petitioner no.2 of being member of an unlawful assembly which murdered Gopi Pandit hence his custodial interrogation is required during the

¶12

investigation and it has been reported by the Investigating Officer that during the course of investigation, none of the witnesses have stated about the involvement of the petitioner No.1 in the said offence and it appears that the petitioner No.1 was not involved in the alleged offence but it is submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner no.2.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the fact that the petitioner No.1 has been given clean chit by the Investigating Officer, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner No.1. Accordingly, the petitioner No.1-Madho Pandit @ Mahadeo Pandit is directed to surrender in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih within six weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in connection with Saria P.S. Case No.105 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No.982 of 2019 with the condition that he will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶14

So far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, keeping in view the serious nature of allegation of murdering Gopi Pandit and attempting to murder other persons who came to the rescue of Gopi Pandit as well as requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered

¶15

view that this is not a fit case where the privileges of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner No.2 namely Sunil Pandit @ Sunil Kumar Pandit. Accordingly the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner No.2 namely Sunil Pandit @ Sunil Kumar Pandit is rejected.

¶16

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶17

Animesh/

Madho Pandit Alias Mahadeo Pandit v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madho Pandit Alias Mahadeo Pandit 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

Anand Baraik Vs Ranjeet Bahadur Singh

Raushan Tirki Alias Roshan Tirki Vs the State of Jharkhand

Noor Hassan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramsihashan Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suresh Bhuiyan Vs the State of Jharkhand