Allowed

Pintu Ram v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Jul 2023A.B.A./29/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to five petitioners facing arrest in a matrimonial dispute case. The court imposed conditions including bond payment, cooperation with investigation, and surrender before the court within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners are directed to surrender within four weeks and be enlarged on bail with a bond of Rs.25,000 each and two sureties, subject to conditions including cooperation and appearance before th

Pintu Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 29 of 2023

¶2

------

¶3

Pintu Ram

¶4

Devendra Kumar Ram

¶5

Kanhaiya Ram 4. Sita Ram 5. Rajesh Kumar Barma @ Rajesh Kumar Ram

¶6

.... .... …. Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand 2. Dinesh Ram .... .... ....Opposite Parties

¶9

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶10

-----For the Petitioners : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu, Addl.P.P For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate

¶11

Order No. 03 Dated- 13.07.2023

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

Apprehending their arrest in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No. 127 of 2021 instituted under Sections 341/323/324/307/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections ¾ of the D.P. Act, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶14

As per F.I.R., it is alleged that the informant had fixed marriage of his daughter Khushbu Kumari with Krishna Ram. The marriage ceremony was to be held on 30.04.2021 at Surya Mandir, Mirjaganj. To sort out some dispute, the informant with other relatives and wellwisher met them at Surya Mandir Mirjaganj, but the petitioners and his brothers and 10-15 other miscreants started assaulting them and abused them in filthy language. During said occurrence, some miscreants gave Ustra blows to Sagar Kumar Ram as a result of which Sagar Kumar Ram sustained cut injuries on his neck and on his abdomen and they have also assaulted women and teased them.

¶15

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

¶16

-2-

¶17

Learned Addl.P.P as well as the learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and have admitted the factum of settlement between the parties and solemnization of marriage of the informant’s daughter with Krishna Ram.

¶18

It appears that admittedly, there is a scuffle which took place at the time of solemnization of marriage with one Krishna Ram s/o Mahadeo Ram. Later on, marriage was solemnized and both the parties have settled their dispute amicably and the allegations are general and omnibus about the assault given by the petitioners and one of the coaccused of this case has faced the trial in S. T. Case No. 169 of 2022 and acquitted from the charges levelled against him.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioners coupled with materials available on record, I am inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the Court below 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.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Giridih in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No. 127 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 numbers and photocopy of the Aadhar Cards with an undertaking that they will not change their mobile numbers during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶21

Umesh/-

Pintu Ram v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu Ram 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

Abbas Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashish Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suraj Kumar Mirdha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abdul Rahman Alias Abdul Rahman Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kanhaiya Jasiwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rohit Kumar Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand