Allowed

Paran Rana v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Sept 2022B.A./8911/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under B.A. No. 8911 of 2022, the High Court of Jharkhand enhanced conditions and granted bail to the petitioner, who was accused under sections 307 and 325 IPC and has an antecedent encumbrance on bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties; must report to police station on last Saturday of every month for one year.

Paran Rana Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)

¶2

B.A .No. 8911 of 2022

¶3

Paran Rana … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

¶6

¶7

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

¶8

------For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, APP

¶9

-------- Order No. 05 /Dated: 19th September, 2022

¶10

Heard Mr. Ankit Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, the learned APP for the State.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident arises due to previous enmity. The allegations are general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and no offence under section 307 of the IPC is made out. There is no allegation of injury levelled by the informant against the petitioner. Admittedly there is land dispute between the parties. It is further submitted that the informant is trying to grab the nontransferable Jamabandi land of the petitioner for which the proceedings under section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated by the informant and which was subsequently dropped. Moreover, counsel says in para 12 of the pleadings that there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody from 14.12.2021, therefore, the prayer for bail of the petitioner should be considered.

¶12

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application and pointed out that allegations levelled against the petitioner come within the purview of various sections including sections 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that the nature of injury of injury is not clear from the impugned order, therefore, case diary is required but even the nature of allegations and nature of injuries that have been there, the bail should not be granted to the petitioner.

¶13

Having heard both counsels, gone through the records of the case and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner, named above, on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/(rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhupur in

¶14

-2-

¶15

connection with Sarath P.S. Case No. 166 of 2021 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 79 of 2022, subject to the condition that petitioner shall report to the concerned police station on every last Saturday of the month, between 01:00 and 05:00 p.m for one year, failing or if any adverse remarks regarding his non-appearance at the police station, his bail application shall be liable to be cancelled. Any exemption to such attendance shall be done so after direction of the learned Court below.

¶16

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

¶17

Sharda/

Paran Rana v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paran Rana 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalu Saw Alias Lalu Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mritunjay Goswami Alias Mritunjay Das Goswami Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anand Minj Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rupesh Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand