Dismissed

Ramdev Verma v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Aug 2022A.B.A./3751/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Entered an order dismissing the petition for anticipatory bail in proceedings involving offences of rioting, voluntarily causing grievous hurt, assault, and assault with intent to murder. There was a dispute between petitioners and the opponent over land, with allegations of false implication by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected; Petitioners directed to surrender within four weeks.

Ramdev Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3751 of 2022

¶2

------

¶3

Ramdev Verma

¶4

Mahavir Verma @ Mahabir Verma

¶5

.... .... …. Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party

¶8

------

¶9

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶10

-----For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, Addl.P.P

¶11

------

¶12

Order No.04 Dated- 16.08.2022

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

Apprehending their arrest in connection with Sarath P.S. Case No. 14 of 2022 instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 307, 452, 354, 379 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶15

As per FIR, the allegation is that on 23.01.2022 at about 4:45 pm, children were playing in front of the house, meantime, the petitioners along with others arrived at the spot armed with deadly weapon and started abusing calling the name of Anil Mahto, Birendra Mahto and Badri Mahto. It is further alleged that when Anil Mahto and Birendra Mahto came out from their house, petitioners assaulted them by means of iron rod and lathi causing serious injury to one Birendra Yadav and also outraged the modesty of female members of the informant and snatched silver chain of the wife of Birendra Mahto.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and has committed no offence at all rather they have been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity. It is further submitted that the informant party is aggressor and for the selfsame occurrence, earlier petitioner no.2 lodged Sarath P.S. Case No.13 of 2022 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 307, 302, 452, 354, 379 of PIC against informant party for murder of Bahadur Verma and as a counter blast, this false case been lodged against the petitioners. In case of their arrest at the hands of police, prestige and reputation of the petitioners shall be ruined. It is further submitted that petitioners undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case and will not indulge in tampering with prosecution evidence and will abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court in the matter of

¶17

granting anticipatory bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶18

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that there is specific and direct allegation against the petitioners that they have outraged the modesty of female members of informant and assaulted the informant and others causing injury to informant and other and also caused grievous injury to one Birendra Mahto dangerous to life. Hence, petitioners may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioners and gravity of offence and severity of punishment, coupled with materials available on record, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioners is rejected.

¶20

Petitioners are directed to surrender before the court below within four weeks from the date of this order.

¶21

In case, petitioners surrender before the trial court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, learned court below shall consider the prayer for regular bail of petitioners without being prejudiced by this order.

¶22

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶23

Pappu/

Ramdev Verma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdev Verma 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

Rahul Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lal Bahadur Alias Golu Keshri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Virendra Pratap Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Antu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjeet Sagar Alias Sanjit Sagar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Roshan Raj Vs the State of Jharkhand