Gurudayal Sao Alias Gurudev Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2024)

Gurudayal Sao Alias Gurudev Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Privilege of anticipatory bail extended to Gurudayal Sao @ Gurudev Sao: surrender within four weeks; on arrest or surrender, enlargement on bail on bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in connection with Tandwa P.S. Case No. 112 of 2018 (G.R. No. 996 of 2018), conditioned on cooperation in investigation, furnishing of mobile number and photocopy of Aadhar Card with undertaking not to change the mobile number during pendency, and subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue for consideration

Whether the privilege of anticipatory bail should be extended to the petitioner apprehending arrest in Tandwa P.S. Case No. 112 of 2018 (G.R. No. 996 of 2018), instituted under Sections 323, 504, 506, 385, 387 and 353 of the I.P.C.

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegation against the petitioner coupled with the materials available on record, this Court was inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

Operative directions granting anticipatory bail: petitioner directed to surrender within four weeks; on arrest or surrender to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, conditioned on cooperation in investigation, furnishing of mobile number and Aadhar Card copy with an undertaking not to change the mobile number during pendency, and subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED — High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi — A.B.A. No. 365 of 2023 (decided 5th March, 2024) — Gurudayal Sao @ Gurudev Sao v. The State of Jharkhand — Coram: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. Apprehending arrest in Tandwa P.S. Case No. 112 of 2018 (G.R. No. 996 of 2018), instituted under Sections 323, 504, 506, 385, 387 and 353 of the I.P.C. — arising from alleged pressurizing for entry of vehicles at the Aamrapali Coal Area check-post, threatening of employees and locking of all three weigh bridges — the petitioner sought anticipatory bail. Counsel pleaded innocence and false implication, delay of about 11 days in lodging the FIR, absence of criminal antecedent, and parity with a co-accused already granted anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 08.10.2020 in A.B.A. No. 4765 of 2020; learned Addl. P.P. opposed the prayer. Considering the facts and circumstances, the nature of the allegation and materials available on record, the Court extended the privilege of anticipatory bail: petitioner to surrender within four weeks and, on arrest or surrender, be enlarged on bail on a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, conditioned on cooperation in investigation, furnishing of mobile number and photocopy of Aadhar Card with an undertaking not to change the mobile number during pendency, and subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

A.B.A. No. 365 of 2023

Gurudayal Sao @ Gurudev Sao ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

-------- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P. --------- Order No. 04/Dated: 5^th March, 2024

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Tandwa P.S. Case No. 112 of 2018 (G.R. No. 996 of 2018) instituted under Sections 323, 504, 506, 385, 387 and 353 of the I.P.C., the petitioner has moved to this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

As per the F.I.R., the allegation is that the petitioner along with co-accused were pressurizing for the entry of the vehicles in the check-post, in the Aamrapali Coal Area and when the same was objected to by the informant-Security In-charge, the petitioner threatened the employees and locked all the three weigh bridges.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that there is delay of about 11 days in lodging the FIR. It is further submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is submitted that co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.10.2020 in A.B.A. No. 4765 of 2020. It is lastly submitted that petitioner undertakes to cooperate in investigation of the case and abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court in the matter of granting anticipatory bail. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on

-2-

record, I am inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court within four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in connection with Tandwa P.S. Case No. 112 of 2018 (G.R. No. 996 of 2018) with the condition that he will co-operate in investigation of the case and will furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his 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.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Sunil/