Petitioners sought modification of anticipatory bail order, claiming inability to pay victim compensation. Court dismissed petition, noting the undertaking was a condition for bail, and directed coercive steps for trial.
Discretionary modifications sought were denied; coercive steps directed for trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 752 of 2021
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. … Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Praveen Kr. Appu, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Yasir Arafat, Advocate ------
Order No.04 Dated- 10.09.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over.
In view of the personal undertaking of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.
This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C by the petitioners with a prayer for modification of the order dated 26.02.2019, passed in A.B.A. No. 8396 of 2018.
It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that vide order dated 26.02.2019, passed in A.B.A. No. 8396 of 2018, consequent upon the petitioners and the opposite party no.2 arriving at a settlement, it was agreed by the petitioners that they will jointly pay Rs.16,50,000/- to the opposite party no.2 on or before 30.06.2019 as ad interim victim compensation, the petitioners were given the privilege of anticipatory bail. It is next submitted that the petitioners because of the reasons mentioned in the instant criminal miscellaneous petition are not agreeing to pay the said ad interim victim compensation amount to the opposite party no.2. Hence it is submitted that the said order be modified.
Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for modification and submitted that the petitioner enjoyed the breather from his arrest in connection with this case, in the shape of anticipatory bail by misleading the court and by making a false undertaking as he wants to go back from his undertaking, it speaks volumes about his intention and conduct. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer of the petitioner for modifying the order dated 26.02.2019, passed in A.B.A. No. 8396 of 2018 ought not be allowed.
Considering the fact that the petitioner is not ready and willing to abide by the commitments made before this Court upon a compromise, only upon which, he was given the privilege of anticipatory bail, this Court does not find any justifiable reason for interfering with the order dated 26.02.2019, passed in A.B.A. No. 8396 of 2018. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.
The learned trial court is directed to take all coercive steps against the petitioner for his apprehension for facing the trial.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Sonu-Gunjan/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to modify the anticipatory bail order after the petitioner refused to pay the agreed victim compensation.
Whether to grant relief considering the petitioner's failure to abide by commitments made before the court.
Whether coercive steps should be directed to ensure the petitioner faces trial.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sabiruddin Sk.
Md. Ferajuddin
The State of Jharkhand
Anr.
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
