Partly allowed

Lal Tudu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Oct 2024A.B.A./2468/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application in a case under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 354(Kh), 504, 506 and 34 IPC. Petitioner no.3 was already apprehended, so his prayer was dismissed as infructuous. Injuries were found simple; bail granted to petitioners nos. 1 and 2 upon surrender.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to petitioner nos. 1 and 2 on surrender within four weeks; bail bonds Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties, subject to S.438(2) CrPC conditions.

Lal Tudu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 2468 of 2024

¶3

Lal Tudu, Aged about 58 years, Son of Chetan Tudu

¶4

Ashok Tudu, Aged about 42 years

¶5

Tala Babu Tudu, Aged about 26 years Both sons of Lal Tudu, All resident of Village- Beldiha, P.O.- Samri, P.S.- Mahagama, District- Godda ..… Petitioners Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶9

--------For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, APP

¶10

05/ 18^th October, 2024

¶11

At the outset submission has been made by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no.3, Tala Babu Tudu has already been apprehended, as such, prayer of anticipatory bail qua petitioner no.3, namely, Tala Babu Tudu has become infructuous .

¶12

In view of above said submission, this anticipatory bail application qua

¶13

petitioner no.3, namely, Tala Babu Tudu is dismissed as infructuous and now this matter is being heard only on behalf of petitioner nos. 1 & 2.

¶14

Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are apprehending their arrest in connection with Mahagama P.S. Case No. 97 of 2023 for the offences registered under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 354(Kh), 504, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned J.M., 1^st Class, Godda.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegation as levelled in the FIR appears to be improbable one and there is some dispute between informant side and petitioners side which prompted the informant to lodge the present case. He also submitted that the alleged injury received on the person is simple in nature. Upon aforesaid premise, prayer for anticipatory bail has been made.

¶16

The learned APP opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

¶17

This Court perused the content of FIR and material available in the case diary along with injury report. Injury received on the person speaks about lacerated wound and bruises and doctor has opined injuries as simple one.

¶18

Considering the totality of aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is

¶19

inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, petitioner no.1, Lal Tudu and petitioner no.2, Ashok Tudu are directed to surrender before the learned Court below within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the learned court below on their surrender, shall release them on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned J.M., 1^st Class, Godda in connection with Mahagama P.S. Case No. 97 of 2023 subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶21

Rajnish

Lal Tudu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Tudu 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

Surajnath Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Prasad Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Purnima Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashwini Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Kumar Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand