Partly allowed

Ganesh Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Dec 2022A.B.A./7014/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to women petitioners Nos.4 and 9 in a case involving grievous injury and snatching, while denying the same to male petitioners Nos.1-3 who face specific serious allegations. The court directed surrender by the favored petitioners with security bonds and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to petitioners Nos.4 and 9; directions for surrender within four weeks. Application for same_petitioners Nos.1-3 rejected.

Ganesh Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No.7014 of 2022

¶3

------

¶4

Ganesh Mahto

¶5

Satrughan Mahto

¶6

Shivnarayan Mahto

¶7

Kalawati Devi

¶8

Nilmani Devi

¶9

Aruna Devi

¶10

Pramila Devi

¶11

Momita Devi

¶12

Parvati Devi .... .... …. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party

¶13

------

¶14

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶15

-----For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl.P.P ------

¶16

Order No.05 Dated- 22.12.2022

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

Apprehending their arrest in connection with Godda(Town) P.S. Case No. 351 of 2021 instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 307, 379, 354-B, 506, 341 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶19

It is alleged that the scuffle took place between the parties due to land dispute. In the meantime, petitioners along with others came to the house of the informant and started assaulting the informant and others by means of gadansa, iron rod, axe and tangi causing grievous injuries to them and snatched golden chain and silver chain and set fire on house.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence at all rather they have been falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute between the parties. There are general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners of causing injures and snatching golden chain and silver chain. The injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature. No specific role has been assigned against the petitioners and they have no criminal antecedents. Petitioners Nos.4-9 are women and the allegations as alleged in FIR are entirely false and fabricated. Petitioners undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, the petitioners may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶21

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that there are direct allegations of causing grievous injuries to the informant and other injured against the petitioners dangerous to their life. Hence, petitioners may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶22

Considering over all facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that there are direct and specific allegations against the petitioner No.1-3- Ganesh Mahto, Satrughan Mahto and Shivnarayan Mahto of causing grievous injuries to the informant and other injured persons dangerous to life. In view of the gravity of offence, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner No.1-3- Ganesh Mahto, Satrughan Mahto and Shivnarayan Mahto. Accordingly, the prayer of anticipatory bail application of petitioner No.1-3- Ganesh Mahto, Satrughan Mahto and Shivnarayan Mahto is rejected.

¶23

So far, the petitioner Nos.4 and 9 are concerned, they are women and no specific role has been attributed against them, hence, I am inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner Nos.4 and 9. Accordingly, the petitioner Nos.4 and 9 are directed to surrender in the Court within four weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrendering, they will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Godda in connection with Godda(Town) P.S. Case No. 351 of 2021 with the condition that they will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish their mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that they will not change their 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.

¶24

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶25

Pappu/

Ganesh Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Mahto 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

Samdarshi Yadav Alias Samvarti Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Karan Kumar Alias Karan Raj Vs the State of Jharkhand

Piyush Raj Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramchandra Maharan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Sinha Alias Sunil Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand