Allowed

Sitaram Rai v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Mar 2021A.B.A./951/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners accused of assault in an FIR involving land dispute, considering injuries simple and citing a precedent where bail was granted in similar circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Sarwan P.S. Case No. 107 of 2020, subject to standard conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Sitaram Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 951 of 2021

¶2

......

¶3

Sitaram Rai 2. Sunil Kumar --- --- Petitioners

¶4

Versus The State of Jharkhand -- --- Opp. Party

¶5

¶6

CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Through Video Conferencing

¶7

--For the Petitioners : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rajendra R. Ravidas, A.P.P. ---

¶8

02/12.03.2021 Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the following surviving defects within two weeks :-

¶9

9(i) Execution of petitioner no.1 differs from his name at vak.

¶10

Office to place the file for inspection and removal of defects within the same time on requisition being made.

¶11

Petitioners seek protection of anticipatory bail in terms of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Sarwan P.S. Case No. 107 of 2020 instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 354B, 379 and 427 of I.P.C., pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on allegations of trying to capture PCC Road at Manjori Mouza under Sarwan Police Station, petitioners along with 8 others have been made accused. Allegations of assault of two sons of the informant are upon Falguni Yadav and wife of accused Dani Rai which led to bleeding injury. Exaggerated allegations of assault have been made against these two petitioners by Lathi and rod upon Basudeo Yadav, however there are no such corresponding injuries. There is an admitted land dispute between the parties and informant party wants to capture it illegally upon which the accused persons had objected. In similar circumstances, this Court has been pleased to grant anticipatory bail to one of the accused Dani Rai in A.B.A. No.650/2021 vide order dated 5^th March 2021. Therefore, petitioners may be protected from unnecessary incarceration.

¶13

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. He, however, submits on the basis of memo of evidence received in connection with the instant case that the injuries are simple in nature upon the victim Basudeo Yadav upon whom allegations of assault by Lathi and rod have been made by these two petitioners.

¶14

-2-

¶15

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the facts and circumstances above.

¶16

It appears that though allegations of assault by Lathi and road upon Basudeo Yadav are against these two petitioners who along with 6 others have been made accused in the instant F.I.R., but as per the instructions available with the learned A.P.P., the injuries are simple in nature. Moreover, other co-accused Dani Rai has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in A.B.A. No.650/2021 against whom also there was allegation of assault upon Fudo Devi by Lathi, but there were no corresponding injuries.

¶17

In those circumstances, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to these two petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners above named, in the event of their surrender or arrest within in a period of 4 weeks, 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 Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar in connection with Sarwan P.S. Case No. 107 of 2020, subject to the conditions laid down u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation. The petitioners and their bailors shall not change their addresses and mobile numbers without permission of the learned trial court during pendency of this case.

¶18

( Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

¶19

Shamim/

Sitaram Rai v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitaram Rai 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

Om Prakash Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jagdish Pradhan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jagarnath Sao Alis Jagarnath Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kanhaiya Sao Alias Kanhaiya Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abbas Ansari Alias Abbas Mian Vs the State of Jharkhand